News, Interviews and Richard Dawkins
by BradfordRichard Dawkins, the well known atheist advocate and ID critic, has a well honed instinct for showmanship and a feel for the media. Let's take a look at what he's been doing.
A television program, which employs Richard Dawkins as an interviewer, requested an interview of creationist John Mackay. The interview choice is curious in that Mackay is a controversial figure; having been excommunicated from his church and not regarded by many Christian creationists as being representative of them. Nevertheless an interview took place despite only five hours prior notice. The interview was prerecorded and subject to editing prior to being televised.
Truth in Science is an organization with the declared goal of promoting good science education in the UK where Truth in Science is located. Its focus is described as "the origin of life and its diversity." The television program, for which Dawkins serves as interviewer (Channel 4 out of England), sought an interview with a representative of Truth in Science. When the production company revealed the interviewer would be Dawkins, Truth in Science responded by insisting on a live, uncut interview and by someone other than him (perhaps wishing to avoid alleged excessive and unbalanced editing that took place when Professor Alister McGrath was interviewed). The production company turned down the conditions but it is unclear whether both conditions were unacceptable or simply one of the two. No interview is known to be imminent.
In contrast to the Truth in Science approach, when the same television program sought to interview Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, Wright was surprised to learn that Dawkins would conduct the interview. Of course Dawkins and the production company team wield the right to determine who conducts interviews and whether or not the subjects of interviews will be advised in advance. It is even amusing to contemplate Wendy Wright's astonishment on learning the identity of her interviewer. But these brief anecdotes bring to mind some serious journalistic issues.
How would this look if the tables were reversed? Suppose Dawkins submitted to an interview about evolution and found the interviewer was Ken Ham. Or a scientist, engaged in research involving animals, encounters an interviewer who is a representative of PETA. A request is made of Hillary Clinton for an interview about the campaign and how it impacts Bill and Chelsea. She is seated and surprised to find that the interviewer is… Monica Lewinsky.
Unlikely scenarios- true. But is there anything unethical about them? Should interviewers be objective or at least not overtly hostile? Moreover what ethical obligations apply to editing interviews and what should guide editors? Insuring accuracy? Does that entail including prosaic parts, at the expense of more dramatic but less relevant parts? Do editors not have a concurrent obligation to maximize viewer interest particularly since this enhances the employer's bottom line?
Those ideological promos can be tempting too. Should a story be slanted if it hinders the ID movement? Would that not promote the greater good? Or does it come down to simply adhering to truthfulness and avoiding deception?
January 23rd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Very interesting post what with the Expelled movie coming up.
I see nothing wrong with Dawkins as an interviewer, if the interviewee knows in advance, and has the chance to say no. And I think it is only reasonong that TiS can say no. I get the impression in the Expelled interviews, the interviewees were not told what the background of the interviews was. Is that okay wih you, Bradford?
That pretty much happened, didn't it? Not specifically Ken Ham, but part way through an interview Dawkin realised he was talking to creationists (who turned out to be fromj AiG).
This is a TV show by Dawkins. It would be strange if Dawkins was not interviewing, surely. If you want balance, campaign to Channel 4 to get a program where Dembski or whoever puts forward his case, and he gets to do the interviewing.
The editing of an interview to favour one side is certainly wrong. It is basically quote-mining, which is just plain dishonest. But editing to remove irrelevancies is perfectly reasonable. Who is going to judge which is which? Again you have to accept that the program itself is biased, and that is where the problem lies.
By the way, what TiS are promoting is intelligent design in science class. They only say they want good science education.
Comment by The Pixie — January 23, 2008 @ 7:13 am
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Weren't the interviewees in Expelled paid for their time?
Comment by nullasalus — January 23, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Pixie:
I'm not sure what this means. I thought the interviewees were informed that a movie was being made about the subject matter discussed during the interview but I could be mistaken. Does anyone have something definitive?
Comment by Bradford — January 23, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Even if true, how does this relate to the questions and answers given, Pixie? Would answers have been different?
Comment by Jean — January 23, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Pixie:
Editing is my major concern but the issue is larger than Dawkins. I suspect it is a widespread problem although one that is intrinsically difficult to document. There are two strong incentives behind biased editing- money and ideology.
Comment by Bradford — January 23, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Bradford
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...
Jean
Well I guess they might have been more careful of exactly what they said, but really I was thinking that if they knew what the movie was about they might have refused to have anything to do with it (exactly like TiS refusing to have anything to do with the Dawkins program).
Comment by The Pixie — January 23, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
From Pixie's link:
PZ Meyers:
How is it determined that a film one has not viewed is necessarily propaganda?
The editing is key is it not? If PZ's comments are accurately depicted will he have a basis for complaining?
Comment by Bradford — January 23, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Hi folks. This is from a recent Dawkins "interview" of Rupert Sheldrake
The previous week I had sent Richard copies of some of my papers, published in peer-reviewed journals, so that he could look at the data.
Richard seemed uneasy and said, "I don't want to discuss evidence". "Why not?" I asked. "There isn't time. It's too complicated. And that's not what this programme is about." The camera stopped.
The Director, Russell Barnes, confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence. The film he was making was another Dawkins polemic.
I said to Russell, "If you're treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it's not irrational to believe in it. I thought that's what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn't interested in taking part in another low grade debunking exercise."
Richard said, "It's not a low grade debunking exercise; it's a high grade debunking exercise."
In that case, I replied, there had been a serious misunderstanding, because I had been led to believe that this was to be a balanced scientific discussion about evidence. Russell Barnes asked to see the emails I had received from his assistant. He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left.
The line about "not wanting to discuss the evidence" pretty much says it all!
Comment by William Brookfield — January 23, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Good question. Wiki defines propaganda as "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience." I believe that this movie has such a concerted set of messages aimed at promoting intelligent design.
One place to look is the web site of the movie. On the page of resources for students:
http://www.expelledthemovie.co...
Just in one paragraph the movie makers are giving the impression that they are fighting for truth, that the neo-Darwinists are hiding something. Great emotional appeals.
Resources for leaders on this page:
http://www.expelledthemovie.co...
It is for the children and "the youth you serve", so it is virtually your duty to watch the movie, and to side with them. Brilliant emotional appeal again. And then we have "maintained a stranglehold" and "suppressing all other theories"; painting the neo-Darwinists in a particularly bad light, when the reality is that there are no scientific alternatives.
A quote from Dawkins, to rally all the Christians to the cause. Are school children really bombarded with "propaganda" saying that science is incompatible with religion thoughout their education? I do not believe it. It does not matter to them if it is actually true; they have a message to promote, and they will do that any way they can.
So, yes, I suspect the movie will be propaganda.
By the way, did you know they are bribing schools (Christian schools in particular, I cannot think why) to organise mandatory trips to see the film, forcing the parents to foot the bill. But you have to take the children during the first two weeks of release; they have to make it appear to be a big hit one way or another.
http://www.getexpelled.com/sch...
http://www.getexpelled.com/cha...
Comment by The Pixie — January 23, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Pixie, Ben Stein believes that the playing field is not a level one with respect to ID and he points to specific treatment of named individuals to support this. For those who do not have a great deal of emotional commitment to the issues focused around ID (the vast majority of the population) this type of presentation can resonate. One does not have to be pro-ID to dislike the lynch mob mentality pervading Avalos Inc. vis a vis Gonzalez for example.
Comment by Bradford — January 23, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Frankly, this only holds if 'neo-darwinism' is cast in a completely amorphous way. There are competing explanations, predictions, and understandings of biological development and change. That any and all so often get stamped as predictions of darwinism/neo-darwinism - even conflicting predictions - may well be part of the problem. It seems whenever discoveries run counter to what is expected, the response is 'well, this doesn't challenge neo-/darwinism - it just requires amending the theory to take account of the new evidence.' Play that game, and creationism has never been disproved; it's just been changed insofar as particulars go in light of new data.
Speaking for myself - if this movie leads to people viewing scientists as human beings rather than priests of the secular quarter, I'll be thrilled.
Comment by nullasalus — January 23, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Pixie:
Based on this portrayal virtually all the science blogs can be classfied as propaganda. Especially PZ Meyers' blog. They contain generous doses of opinion mixed in with selected facts.
Have you seen the movie?
Comment by Bradford — January 23, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Pixie, are you trying to pretend PZ Myers doesn't use his blog as a vehicle for prosyletization? It's NOT propaganda? Since when did that happen?
Comment by Joy — January 23, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Bradford
Ah, "lynch mob mentality", excellent propaganda.
Ben Stein may be quite sincere in his mistaken and frankly ridiculously Belief that so-called "intelligent design" should be taught in schools as though it really actually is science. That does not mean that he is not using propaganda to try to coerce others to his warped perspective, or alternatively that he is being exploited and manipluated himself by the ID bigshots, as part of their on-going campaign of misinformation.*
Are you sure? What science blogs do you read? I would guess you tend to look at blogs connected to the evolution vs ID debate, and those, by their nature, will be arguing for science and against ID (PZ's being a good example, or Panda's Thumb), so for those, yes, they would count as propaganda.
I guess it is true of a huge number of blogs outside science too. Certainly all ID blogs are, by definition, promotng ID, so must by the same token be propaganda.
The expelled web site has a quote on the student resources page:
"One outstanding movie can do more to influence the culture than dozens of scholarly books." - Ken Connor, Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC
Perhaps they are using that as an excuse for not publishing any scholarly books, but I do wonder how one movie compares to thousands of blogs.
* WARNING: Example of use of propaganda; emotive content not to be taken seriously.
nullasalus
And yet many IDists will insist that neo-Darwinism is dogmatic. Thankfully you seem to realise that it is an evolving theory, part of the on-going process of science, and so subject to change.
By my definition, creationism denies common descent, Darwinism requires it. The two are mutually exclusive.
Joy
What on Earth gave you that idea?
Comment by The Pixie — January 24, 2008 @ 4:50 am
January 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
People have mentioned PZ Myers' blog, Pharyngula. While it is a science blog, each page has at the top the statement "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Myers is quite clear what his politics and beliefs are, he makes it obvious that he is not posting as an unbiased, dispasionate scientist, he is posting an an opinionated individual.
Compare this to the "Evolution News & Views" blog, which has the tagline "News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution", with the domain name "evolutionnews.org". It is run by an organisation called the "Discovery Institute". Now, you and I know the DI very well, and personally I would not trust anything they post. But anyone stumbling across this page without knowing the ID debate could easily be misled into thinking this is a balanced view of evolution. There is nothing on this page to suggest a strong alliengance to one side in the debate, unless you know who the DI are and I strongly suspect the DI do that deliberately.
So yes, PZ indulges in propaganda. But at leaast he has the honesty to be open about it.
Here is the foot note for each page on "Evolution News & Views", which made me laugh:
They want you to think they set up the site to counter the misreporting of the evolution, but the reality is that the purpose of the site is misreporting of the evolution! And the horror of overt bias. The DI answers that with… covert bias.
[For example here]
Comment by The Pixie — January 24, 2008 @ 5:49 am
January 24th, 2008 at 6:32 am
The Pixie says:
Probably. The Evolution series on PBS, and the NOVA segment on Kitzmiller definitely were.
It's not impossible to make a program on such subjects both interesting and unbiased. But I think it is more difficult than approaching a subject with a POV. The problem is that PBS doesn't seem to want to give equal time and some resources to an opposing POV.
Presumably Expelled was made with private funds, where PBS is using a lot of the public's money. That is more pertinent IMHO than whether we label a particular program "propaganda" or not.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — January 24, 2008 @ 6:32 am
January 24th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Pixie:
Pixie, you are unwittingly illustrating what propaganda is. You are depicting a movie you have not seen in a way that would convince others that the producers of it are coercive, manipulative and engaged in spreading misinformation. Good job.
As moviemakers they are using a quote to point out a true statement. Some movies have impacted the larger culture more than scholarly books. That's a simple statement of fact. Gone with the Wind was more influential than most research papers I read or books that allude to them. They're trying to sell a movie. Nothing sinister about that.
Comment by Bradford — January 24, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
This reads like propaganda. Scare tactics to invalidate any claim before they're made.
So, either B. Stein is one who coerces others into his warped perspective - or he's a puppet, too dumb to actually know what's happening to him. This is about as closed-minded as a rant can get; it's a shame it had to come from you.
Comment by Doug — January 24, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Come on now. Have you never seen him interviewed live? Guess what he doesn't act like? The angry, godless liberal that shouts at others that don't fall in line with his views.
I'm sure you've seen him interviewed live before. I like how you focus on his consistency when the camera is not on him and his true sentiment is not being buffered to the folks that frequent his blog.
Comment by Doug — January 24, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Doug:
Doug, an actor should be able to adapt to varying roles to suit the message. PZ is like a chamelion. Brash and trash talking when he can get away with it and scholarly sounding when that will best advance the cause.
Comment by Bradford — January 24, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I agree completely.
The Pixie states:
But primarily when preaching to the choir; certainly does not appear to be the case when trying to win converts.
Pixie, by your standard then, who is being more honest?
Comment by Doug — January 24, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
William Brookfield:
Hi William. An interesting comment. Do you have a reference?
Comment by Bradford — January 24, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Bradford
Oh, dear, Bradford, you really screwed that one up (as did Doug). I can assure you I was not doing that.
You missed the point there too. I was using the statement to support my position, rather than disputing it.
Comment by The Pixie — January 24, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Assured? Well, I'm convinced.
Does inconsiderate, poorly thought out diatribe sit better with you?
I enjoy reading your posts. But that one read just like an angry rant. Trying to invalidate someone's position before you've heard the position entirely with scare tactics is pretty boorish.
Comment by Doug — January 24, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I realize that science as a whole evolves. Popular theories are another matter - and I do think that 'neo-darwinism' as envisioned by many displays a proclivity for 'evolving' that has less to do with scientific utility or validity than with being able to say 'neo-darwinism is never, ever wrong, and is the only scientific option. It's just changed.' If some (admittedly, I don't see this happening) discovery was made where epigenetic activity was discovered to be the most prominent factor in an organism's development, I have no doubt some would pass it off as a new confirmation of n-/d. There's some dogmatism in there, or at least devotion to an idea that isn't based on science.
One of my biggest regrets about discussions of evolution is that pinning down terms is half of the game.
Who has what definition doesn't matter for the example. The point is it would be easy to play the same game - 'the theory is never wrong, it simply changes in accordance with the data, no matter how drastic'. That others would object and say 'No, it really IS wrong, because my standard is this' is half the point.
As for propaganda, the whole argument is a yawn for me. Will Expelled be propaganda? Sure, why not - there's a clear bias in the film's direction. But arguing that it's somehow worse because Ben Stein isn't being clear about his leanings is odd - how can he do that in a movie where he's clearly taking one side over another? Or is it being suggested that Expelled is billing itself as an even-handed look at the ID debate? Somehow, I think Judgment Day would be more nefarious for that reason. Then again, I suppose I would think that, wouldn't I?
Kind of depressing that nowadays 'my propaganda is purer than your propaganda' is seen as a legit argument.
Comment by nullasalus — January 24, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Doug
I prefer carefully constructed diatribe, specifically designed to illustrate the emotive writing that is symptomatic of propaganda (check out the footnote at the end of the post).
Your reaction to my post exactly mirrors my reaction to what I read on the Expelled web site, or on the evolution.org site run by the DI. If we are to have a rational debate, we all have to abandon that sort of irrational prose.
nullasalus
Not sure why you say popular theories. Do you think unpopular theories evolve?
The basic ideas of Darwinism have remain unchanged since OOS, that is variation, selection, inheritance and common descent. The details of hopw that happens has changed a lot, and is still changing today. And they are changing as new data arrives, new hypothesis are supported, old ones rejected. How else should it be?
It would not be a confirmation of neo-Darwinism, but it would become part of its latest incarnation, yes. If EAM or FLE turn out to be right, they too would be subsumed, as I have said on other threads. Personally, I do not see that as a problem; certainly just labelling it dogmatism does not make it so.
Then perhaps we should call it evolution, and embrace that the theory will change as new data comes in. Do you see any similar problem in particle physics? Particle physics is never wrong, it simply changes in accordance with the data, no matter how drastic.
I better clear up my position. Firstly, it was Bradford who brought up propaganda specifically, when he quoted PZ Myers about the movie. I am not saying the movie is worse "because Ben Stein isn't being clear about his leanings", I was only agreeing with Myers that the movie is indeed propaganda (I did object to the DI's evolution.org website being promoted as unbiased when it clearly is not).
I think it is all shades of grey. This post could be described as propaganda, as I writing trying to persuade people to my opinion (I know Joy hates that, but surely that is why we all post here?). But if we all strive to keep our propaganda honest, rational and respectful, avoiding appeals to emotion, we are on a higher moral ground than those who do not.
Comment by The Pixie — January 24, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Pixie, do us all a all favor and see the movie before using its content to support a position.
Comment by Bradford — January 24, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Hi Pixie,
You said:
Just so I understand your terms. . . Would your definition of creationism include Mike Gene's version of intelligent design where emergent organisms have evolved due to front-loading?
Comment by 0112358 — January 24, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
While you are at it. In your definition is common descent universial? Must it be?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 24, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Bradford
Bradford, do us all a favor and see the intelligent designer before using her existence to support a position. Or do you think we can some clues about the existence of the designer without seeing her? Is it then possible we can get some clues about the movie without seeing it?
0112358
No, because FLE involves common descent. As far as I know I use "creationism" in the same sense as Mike Gene.
ffm
By common descent, yes, I mean we all have the same ancestors, people, daffodils, mushrooms, etc. That is as opposed to all the dog "kind" having a common ancestry, but separate to the cat "kind", which would be creationism. What do you mean by "Must it be?"
Comment by The Pixie — January 24, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The problem is everything you hear is hearsay and you are going along with those who feed your predispositions. The "clues" are not the result of empircal results but are more reminiscent of gossip.
Comment by Bradford — January 24, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I think when there's no social or personal investment in a theory, it tends to be treated differently. It's a lot easier to regard a theory as wrong or replaced when the only thing riding on it is its relevance with regards to uncontroversial (scientifically or philosophically) data. Unless you're on the other side of the controversy. Then the theory's burial is called for the moment an inkling of data leaks in contrary to it.
If that's all there is to essential Darwinism, Michael Behe is a darwinist. Dembski is quite possibly a darwinist. Which is fine by me, really; I don't care about labels for labels' sake. But it does get into that amorphous thing I talked about - the 'basic ideas' there can be boiled down to 'organisms reproduce and change over time, and have a common origin'. Even -that- would be fine, but that's not how I've seen it work. I'm reminded of the appendix debacle. Is it vestigial? Well, then it's evidence of n-/d. Oh, it's not vestigial? Then it has no bearing on n-/d. Or it does, but only in a positive way, once you put this spin on it.
No, but I think I've explained why I consider dogmatism to be in play in these conversations. Why wouldn't n-/d be subsumed by a 'new theory' with EAM or FLE? It certainly wouldn't matter to the data if that happened. It reminds me of Stephen Jay Gould's controversies - less about the data (which was accepted), more about the perspective.
A better example would be quantum physics, where the knife fights (as a friend of mine terms them) are constant and vicious, even though the essentials of the data always remains the same.
If it's all shades of grey, calling Ben Stein's film propaganda is pointless. Of course it's propaganda - so's everything else by those standards. Certainly there's something funny about Myers of all people slinging that term around, as is his strange contention that he'd have answered his interview questions differently if he knew the opinion of the people behind the interview. Think about that one for awhile.
Actually, that's a good example. Do you think Myers' blog - one of the top-rated science blogs - is honest? Unemotional? Rational? Respectful? And if not, isn't Ben Stein doing us all a service if he exposes that and other problems in Expelled? Who knows - maybe there really IS an essentially unscientific, ideologically-driven 'problem' among educators and mainstream scientists that needs attention. We'll see if Ben Stein makes his case.
Comment by nullasalus — January 24, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Pixie:
I was just curious about the possibility of there being more than one original life form? If I believed that it was possible that there were a more than one original ancestor and these populations shared DNA via horizontal gene transfer would this make me a creationist?
Fron here http://www.actionbioscience.or...
quote:
Carl Woese, one of the key players in the bid to reconstruct the tree of life, has added another twist to the LUCA puzzle. He has got researchers fired up by suggesting that:
"¢ LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria
"¢ gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a 'sea' of gene transfer8
end quote
Another quick question,
In the recent experiments in which the DNA of one organism was completely replaced by another which organism is considered the ancestor? If I get it wrong does that make me a creationist? I just want to make sure I'm in the right club
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 24, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Hi Bradford,
Yes, I found the story at Rupert Sheldrake's Website.
Comment by William Brookfield — January 24, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 8:19 am
This just in:
If Darwinism requires universal common decent for all life it is only months away from the dust bin of history.
According to Pixie we are all creationists now
http://www.sciam.com/article.c...
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 25, 2008 @ 8:19 am
January 25th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Bradford
These clues are lifted straight from the Expelled web site. How is that hearsay or gossip? Open your eyes, Bradford. Read the web site. This is not second hand information, I am directly quoting the people making the movie. Are you familiar with the saying "from the horse's mouth"
nullasalus
Dembski denies common design, so is not a "Darwinist".
The fact is that Darwin's Darwinism is very different to today's theory of evolution. Given how much we know today, that is bound to be the case. Does that mean we have to abandon the core ideas? Not if they are as good today as they were for Darwin. Should we label it differently? I think so, and often call it modern evolutionary theory (but not always, I know).
As far as I know the appendix is still regarded as vestigial. Although it does have some function, its primary function (as a "caecum") has been lost. My sister had hers removed 15 years ago, and is surviving very well without it. There is an equivalent organ in other vertebrates, and in most, because of their life style, it plays an important role. the theory of evolution neatly explains what has happened. As we have learnt more about biology, that "just-so story" has been modified, but it is largely the same it was originally. See also here.
Okay, let us say they merge. I am not bother which subsumes which, to be honest.
I should have been clearer on my position. While I think there are shades of grey, I still believe some shades are acceptable, some are not. I think my posts are acceptable, whereas the "diatribe" I gave before, which riled both Doug and Bradford, was not. I think the Expelled movie falls more into the latter than the former, as the quotes I gave from the web site of the movie suggest.
I suspect Myers would have refused to be interviewed at all. Did you know the organisation Truth in Science refused to be interviewed by Richard Dawkins? Kind of like that, I think.
As I said before, Myers makes it clear his blog is that of an opinionated individual, so emtional, I guess so. Given its high rating, I suspect it is honest and rational. If people - scientist especially perhaps - found his arguments irrational, or found he was in the habit of just making stuff up, it would not get a good rating. It would be interesting to know how Christian scientists rate it.
Ah, so you think a propaganda movie is justified if it exposes the propaganda on a blog. Gotcha.
Okay, maybe there is a problem. The issue could be approached in an open, unbiased manner, or it could be approached as an attempt to convince people, whether it is true or not. The latter is propaganda, and the movie web site make me think this is how the movie really is.
fifth monarchy man
No.
I am not familar with the experiments; do you have a link?
Okay, I should have said life not created by man is related according to common descent. I kind of imagined that was obvious.
Comment by The Pixie — January 25, 2008 @ 8:36 am
January 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Hi Pixie,
To the question:
you responded:
If I understand correctly, front-loading would involve an intelligent designer who would have done the original front-loading. This original front-loaded organism would therefore have been created. This being the case I would say Mike Gene is a creationist. There are of course, varying degrees of creationism ranging from the front-loading proponent to the six day literalist.
fifth monarchy man:
Take a deep breath and say: "I am a creationist and that's OK".
After all, we all know that PZ's use of the term is for propagandistic reasons only.
Comment by 0112358 — January 25, 2008 @ 11:38 am
January 25th, 2008 at 11:42 am
fmm:
Interesting article, thanks. It comes with caveats…
Hmmm… I can think of some reasons right off the top of my head why a builder of 'synthetic life' might not turn off the infective gene (there's only one?). And while it's entirely predictable that a builder of 'synthetic life' would include "watermarks" - the better to hold and enforce the patent - what if the designer didn't want anyone knowing he'd engineered the microbe on purpose?
What if the 'signature' code was encoded Chinese? Do scientists currently run genome sequences through a universal translator to determine if any of it is encoding a language they don't speak (or is officially 'dead' in this modern age)? Could we translate an encoded bit of 'junk' that reads "Made by Xanjen of Planet Coribunti" if it were written in a dialect of Zebynutu (a sub-language of Coribunti spoken only on the island chain of Thuwersenika)?
I once asked a gene-splicer if he'd have any way to tell if a genome was designed and engineered on purpose by someone who used technology much more subtle than our then-current 'shotgun' approach, and didn't sign his/her work with something an evolved sub-critter could decipher after 2.5 billion years. He admitted he could not - therefore would assume it wasn't designed. That his assumption constituted a false negative in this example didn't bother him, since his design filter is absolute - it doesn't happen unless he decides it happens, and he's never likely to decide such a thing.
Comment by Joy — January 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am
January 25th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Let's take a look at some of your "evidence" and break it down. From the site you quoted:
It already has created controversy. Folks like you judge the movie despite not having seen it. That's very telling.
I have no problem with standing up for truth. Do you?
Good question. Why are they so threatened?
Let's watch the movie and find out before trying and convicting Ben Stein.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Bradford
Cool, let us examine the evidence, and see if it supports PZ Myers' claim - which I endorse - that the movie will be propaganda,
Hmm, you see to have drifted off from your argument. Already. I thought we were trying to decide if the movie was propaganda, not whether it would create controversy. Or are you proposing that as the web site is correct that the movie will stir up controversy, then it necessary cannot be propaganda? No, that would be an incredibly weak argument (the Wiki definition I gave even said "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful").
Oh well. Still, let us see how you continue to break down the evidence.
So no discussion of the evidence there.
Good for you Bradford. But I think we need to scratch below the surface. Remember, we are trying to decide if this is propaganda. Taking a stand for the truth sounds to me like emotive writing. An appeal to emotion, not to the rational. It sounds to me as though they have already decided they have truth on their side; that does not bode well for an unbiased movie. It sounds to me like they want everyone else to think they have truth on their side, without bothering to prove it. It sounds to me, in short, like propaganda.
Oh, and I stand for an honest presentation of the evidence and a rational discussion of what it implies. I do not think we can ever be sure of what the truth is.
I think the problem is that you have fallen for their propaganda. What makes you think neo-Darwinists really are nervous? You just accept it as truth. Can you offer any evidence of this claim? Or are you happy to accept and repeat their claims without any evidence?
And we could wait until the Great Designer shows up in person before we believe ID. Or we can use what evidence we have right now, and try to learn what we can. From what I see of the evidence, the movie is propaganda.
Comment by The Pixie — January 25, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Pixie
He already did and we killed him. Lucky for us he entrusted himself to a few eyewitnesses and left confirming evidence to a chosen few (the Holy Sprit)
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 25, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
It's really not that difficult Pixie. If you have not seen the movie you are not in a position to state that it is either controversial or propaganda. All you are able to do now is cite the promos for the movie and argue against the movie based on ads. That's an exceedlngly weak case.
How profound. Since you used PZ as your reference let it be known that PZ takes stands all the time on what he believes to be the truth.
The conclusion of a closed mind. Truthfully you could have written this as soon as you learned the movie was considered questionable by your mentors. You did not need the promo pretext.
Comment by Bradford — January 25, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
January 25th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Could well be - I was unsure of Dembski's specific stances. Behe, on the other hand, stands. I'm sure others would stand as examples. Carl Woese is another interesting example I wasn't aware of (thank you, fmm) - if he believes there is no single LUCA but rather a plurality, is he out of the darwinist club? And if so, isn't the 'club' minimally useful anyway?
Sure. It's just that the 'core' ideas are so minimal that even the dreaded ID proponents can meet the standards. I wonder if we'll see that anytime soon - you know, ID critics mentioning how 'ID doesn't necessarily require a rejection of darwinism'.
I think the move from 'has no use' to 'has some use' to 'has some use, and for some humans its a very important one' is considerable. The description is pretty damn useless - 'the primary function has been lost'. Okay, but who decides what the primary function is or was? You can look at what the organ actually does or did in a given population with a given lifestyle, but the jump from 'what it does most' to 'primary function' is just that - a jump.
And sure, you can say evolution neatly explained what happened. One problem is, evolution neatly explained what happened when the story was incorrect ('the appendix has no use'). Maybe it's the case that saying 'evolution did it' isn't all that helpful - and maybe Gould (among others) are right when they argue that looking at biological development from one angle (genes v genes) is limiting and leading to more errors than necessary.
If you say so. But the shades question gets more interesting in later responses.
Funny - that's not what I've read Myers saying. He said he'd have given them a different show if he knew where they were coming from. And for the record, some people refuse to be interviewed by Dawkins (Rupert Sheldrake is a good example, and a link is given in this thread) not because of who he is, but because of his past record and style. Michael Behe was interviewed by a popular atheist/skeptic website.
By the way - Myers was paid for his interview. Over a grand or thereabouts, I believe.
Wow. The popularity of his blog indicates it's honest and rational? Also honest and rational: American Idol, Bill O'Reilly, Dragonball Z.
Sorry, this comes across like contortionism to me. I guess it's 'honest' insofar as Myers probably believes a lot of what he writes, and perhaps 'rational' in that he accepts mainstream science, even if he injects a lot of philosophy into it. But, ah well.
Who said anything about justification? That's a whole other argument. I simply said it could have a positive effect and highlight some important issues.
A movie or report is 'biased' the moment it's out, because its very existence assumes there is a problem worth discussing. As you said, it's a question of degree and particulars. Obviously Ben Stein & company believe that the problems are very real, and unjustified. Their bias is clear, and they don't covertly take a side - they do so explicitly. The remaining question is whether the evidence they present, and the manner in which they present it, is 'rational, unemotional, honest, and respectful.' And really, it's very hard to tell whether that's the case based on previews and hints about the movie.
Comment by nullasalus — January 25, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Nullasalus
I think the focus on common decent is unproductive because for example a Hindu could hold to common decent for religious and not scientific reasons and therefore be a creationist.
I'm just looking for accurate definitions
I suggest we define creationism as
Any theory explaining the origin and diversity of life that is based primarily on sacred texts or traditions instead of scientific evidence.
And Darwinism as..
The theory that considers the diversity of life to be the result ultimately of natural (unintelligent) selection filtering random (undirected) mutations.
And ID as
the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.
ID for the most part has no problem with common decent yet is diametrically opposed to Darwinism.
This just seems like a better way to define things don't you think.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 26, 2008 @ 8:03 am
January 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Most any claim of Divine Poofing would probably be seen as meeting the ordinary definition of Creationism. But Creationists usually do refer to sacred texts for their explanations of origins.
Darwin didn't know about the source of biological variation, or have knowledge of a valid theory of genetics. That might be more properly described as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, but the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a rather dated theory that's been extensively revised since its inception in the 1930's.
The term Neodarwinism originated in the 19th century as a rejection of inherited traits, though sometimes is used to refer to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. This just shows the difficulty of pinning labels on rapidly advancing scientific theories. I simply use the term Theory of Evolution.
Notice the lack of parallel structure. While you defined Creationism and Darwinism as claims, you have defined ID as a study. If ID is not a claim, then it can't be diametrically opposed to Darwinism. In fact, most IDists falsely *claim* that there is scientific evidence of intelligent design in biology.
Except in the real world. Many IDists of my acquaintance do emphatically reject Common Descent, using the same sort of fallacious reasoning as found in most ID arguments. They have a great deal of trouble with the idea that people and petunias, humans and hummingbirds, baptists and baboons, are distant cousins. Common Descent is one of the most profound scientific facts in biology, and the truth of this assertion is deserving of being defended.
Comment by Zachriel — January 26, 2008 @ 10:26 am
January 26th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Zach:
Hear hear. The nested hierarchical organization of life logically needn't be this way, but it is. Damn, I'm in Oz for an evolution conference and my biological clock keeps playing havoc with me. Why didn't the Designer take care of this, huh? A simple reset button would have done just fine.
Comment by Raevmo — January 26, 2008 @ 10:40 am
January 26th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Hi folks,
This may be a bit off topic but I, for one, am profoundly concerned that Dawkins is merely masquerading as a scientist and that Dawkins is really "The Charles Simony Professor of the Public Understanding of Atheism" — not Science. For Dawkins "science" is just a convenient tool fo the promotion of his atheism. For instance on June 13, 2007 a massive study involving hundreds of scientist from 19 countries released their combined findings…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...
Richard Dawkins (the author of The Selfish Gene theory) on his official web page under the categories "Science/Genetics" has absolutely nothing to say about this massive and historic study in genetics.
All we can find on Dawkins site is "6 Billion Bits of Data about Me Me Me!" (June 4/07) and some article about rebuilding Neanderthal genes (June 27/07).
While the Encode Project does indeed fit the categories "science" and "genetics" the findings fail to conform to Dawkin's unspoken rule that it must be "science" and "genetics" that support atheism and Dawkins selfish gene theory. Unless the science and evidence supports Dawkin's cherished atheism/materialism, Dawkins is just not interested.
The Sheldrake interview (mentioned above) is just another example of Dawkin's "love" of science and evidence.
Comment by William Brookfield — January 26, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Hey Zach:
It's not my definition it's Dembskis' I have no problem with a definition like
The theory claims that some patterns in nature are best explained as being the result of intelligence.
I just thought that since unlike Creationism and Darwinism the originators Of ID are for the most part still around I would defer to them to define there own term.
Defend away just be prepared to have most IDers agree with you and some Darwinists like Carl Woese disagree. Not to mention the fact that in a matter of months common decent will be demonstrateably false according to the article I linked to.
It will continue to be confusing to the rest of us but knock your self out.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — January 26, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Bradford
It could be stronger, I will agree, but I believe there is a strong connection between the web site promoting the movie and the movie. I contend that if the web site promoting the movie looks like propaganda, then it is highly likely that the movie is propaganda.
"let it be known" Is that what you consider to be an argument? How about you back up these assertions?
Or not. Of course he takes a stand on what he believes to be the truth We all do, don't we? Some of us do that by looking at evidence, and building a rational case on that. The movie web site takes the approach of asserting it is "truth", and making the emotional demand that we all take a stand for its version of the truth. Can you see the difference?
Do you think we should only make a conclusion when we have all the evidence? So until you have personally seen the Great Designer, anyone who accepts ID must - by that logic - have a closed mind. Is that really your position, or would it be fair to say that you chop-and-change your demands for evidence depending on what your argument is?
But the promo helpfully provides supporting evidence.
nullasalus
Hmm, perhaps you can help me here, and give me your definition of Darwinism. On what basis would you say Behe and Woese are not Darwinists, but Darwin and Dawkins are (were)?
Denton's ID (I think) accepts modern evolutionary theory pretty much as is.
This is from the web site I linked to last time:
The move from 'has no use' to 'has some use' is of no consequence to evolution as was recognised a century ago. What do you mean by "for some humans its a very important one"
It is the same story where the appendix has no use or some minor use, as was noted back in 1912.
I am note sure quite what you mean. I would certainly say tht morphology is important. Is that what Gould says? Perhaps you have a link to back up this assertion?
Again, any chance of a link to back that up?
It is odd that on the one hand Bradford is dismissing my claim that Expelled is propaganda, because he considers the web site of the movie to be such poor evidence, and on the other hand, you make this assertion with no evidence whatsoever.
I assumed that was the case.
Are you claiming that as he was paid, it must be true that he would never have refused to do the interview? Perhaps you could elucidate on what the significance of that is.
I am guessing that PZ Myers' science blog will attract people with an interest in science, while American Idol, Bill O'Reilly and Dragonball Z will appeal to other groups. I believe people interested in science with not rate a blog if it is not honest and rational. That may not be the case for the audience of American Idol.
I mean rational in the sense that he uses reason rather than appeals to emotion. With regards to honesty, you are spot on. How can anyone be any more honest than that?
That is possible, but a whole other argument.
I would judge it, then, on whether it makes a rational, well-researched case, or whether it relies on emotional sensationalism.
Do you think the way the movie makers are paying schools to organise mandatory trips, paid for by the parents, is honest?
fmm
Would you say that was consistent with theistic evolution?
Comment by The Pixie — January 26, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
That's your subjective view. I'm surprised that one who argues for rationaity and empirical evidence does not at least wait to see a movie before passing judgement but then again maybe I take the evidentiary claims of the other side too seriously.
The difference is you are eager to judge a movie based strictly on your assessments of ads. You can't even wait to find out if the producers have interviewed someone who adds another piece to a puzzle that was not there before. In this respect you are behaving like a perfect ideologue.
When all the evidence is a movie that will come out shortly then the answer is yes. I would expect you to wait a short period of time, see the movie and then give an informed opinion.
Comment by Bradford — January 26, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Bradford
Of course it is my subjective view; that is the only view I have, by definition. But it is a subjective view supported by empirical evidence.
Sure, we can expect more evidence to arrive soon, but that does not stop us making inferences now, does it?
Tell me, Bradford, have you see the Channel 4 documentary by Dawkins? On what basis do you label it a "ideological promo"
Comment by The Pixie — January 26, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
You ignored my point. Notice the lack of parallel structure. If ID is not a valid scientific theory, then it can't be diametrically opposed to Darwinism except as a form of non-scientific handwaving.
So you agree with Woese in that humans and hummingbirds share a common ancestor. Good. (Woese defines a Darwinian threshold very early in the history of life when the bifurcating tree of common descent begins.)
You're behind the times. There are already a number of known exceptions to Common Descent, e.g. endogenous retroviruses and the origin of chloroplasts. These facts have been integrated into the modern understanding of common descent. Nevertheless, baptists and baboons share a common ancestor. It's as strongly a supported fact as anything in science.
Comment by Zachriel — January 26, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
January 26th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
To be honest, I find 'darwinist/darwinism' to be such an abused term that I don't really use it to clarify questions, because its introduction causes more confusion than anything else. So maybe Behe and Woese aren't Darwinists (it seems like Woese isn't one by your definition). I will say that if Woese turns out to be viewed as correct and there is no single LUCA/if common descent dies as a scientific conjecture, I'd bet one hell of a lot of money on the multiple LUCA model being claimed to be part of n-/d by people who find the term important, and universal common descent will no longer be an important part of the theory.
Its use in third world countries where sanitation standards are lacking, for one thing. And again, the quote argues primary against secondary use - but who decides what the 'primary use' is for organs in an organism? Do we take a survey of creatures that have similar organs and judge how often they're used, and what they do in those creatures? Do we ask the designer what they were designed for(ha ha)?
From the wikipedia entry on Vermiform Appendix:
William Parker, Randy Bollinger, and colleagues at Duke University proposed that the appendix serves as a safe haven for useful bacteria when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines.[9] [10] This proposal is based on a new understanding of how the immune system supports the growth of beneficial intestinal bacteria [11] [12], in combination with many well-known features of the appendix, including its architecture and its association with copious amounts of immune tissue. Such a function is expected to be useful in a culture lacking modern sanitation and hea