Nobel Laureates writing in defense of science
by KrauzeIn July, Cardinal Schönborn wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, describing "evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense" as "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection". Kenneth Miller wrote a response, in which he quoted Schönborn's definition, then added:
"To be sure, many evolutionists have made such assertions in their popular writings on the "meaning" on evolutionary theory. But are such assertions truly part of evolution as it is understood by the "mainstream biologists" of which the Cardinal speaks?
Not at all."
This Thursday, an open letter to the Kansas State Board of Education, signed by 38 Nobel Laureates, was released (available in PDF here). Starting with the down-to-Earth sentence, "We, Nobel Laureates, are writing in defense of science", it contains this passage:
"Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection."
Uh oh. Is Miller going to write another reply, informing these 38 Nobel Laureates that they don't really understand the science they're defending?
(Mike has previously commented on Miller's reply here. Hat tip: Uncommon Descent.)
September 16th, 2005 at 7:13 pm
Wow. What a nice catch. This really calls the judgment of 38 Nobel Laureates into question. Do these 38 Nobel Laureates have evidence that evolution is unplanned? Do these 38 Nobel Laureates have evidence that evolution is unguided? Remember, that the NABT came to the conclusion that this type of presentation of evolution is metaphysical in nature. These 38 Nobel Laureates just shot science in the foot, as they are attacking theistic evolution.
As for Ken Miller, I doubt we can count on him to take issue with this claim. Since carving out his own niche with this book, he's become just another dime-a-dozen critic. Maybe someone scolded him for chapter 6 and he has been effectively leashed.
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
September 16th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Regarding Miller, it is quite interesting to see, as Mike Gene pointed out in the post referred to above, Miller taking someone to task for calling evolution an unguided, unplanned process. In the widely used high school biology textbook "Biology" by Miller (and Levine), Miller and Levine state that "evolution proceeds without plan or purpose." I wish I had the textbook here to provide the exact page number. Yet in the article critiquing the Cardinal, Miller writes: "Exactly. Science is, just as John Paul II said, silent on the issue of ultimate purpose, an issue that lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry. This means that biological evolution, correctly understood, does not make the claim of purposelessness. It does not address what Simpson called the "deeper problem," leaving that problem, quite properly, to the realm of faith."
Whatever Miller might write in response to the Cardinal, its quite clear that what he wants taught in the biology class is the evolution is an unplanned, unguided process. Miller and apparently the Nobel Laureates appear to be concerned with restricting which worldview is acceptable for a science classroom. Perhaps they could tell us what makes that worldview true?
Comment by DonaldM — September 16, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 2:04 am
If you would substitute for 'defining science in such a way that sciences could not even discover [a] fact,' then it would be much more patalable. This is more of a post-modern approach. The sciences that make use of evolutionary grammar and (representatives of) those which are claiming i+d theories qualify as science are at the same time not exclusive and not spelled out by IDists.
One problem is that many scientists don't want to give up their reign on universality and absoluteness, i.e. their scientific authority. Naturalism is a grand ideology, reaching beyond biology, botany, geology, zoology, etc. Natural science does appear sometimes to be the target, by the very people who are at the same time 'practising' it…and on both 'sides.'
Plus, if you are going to tip your systematic scientific hat toward philosophy, then what are you going to do with theology? Did you read L. Haarsma's text above? My suspicion is this tri-factor approach would be recognized and reiterated by Miller as well.
Unguided and unplanned, according to what? According to who(m), i.e. not merely the textbook writers. This is not mere 'science' talk; it involves more than that. Why?
Comment by g arago — September 17, 2005 @ 2:04 am
September 17th, 2005 at 3:50 am
Another nice quote:
"In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."
In other words, it's not about the evidence. If any of these Nobel Laureates were asked to review a research article on ID, would they approve it, thinking that ID is fundamentally unscientific?
Comment by Krauze — September 17, 2005 @ 3:50 am
September 17th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Nicely stated. Krauze. It's only "about the evidence" if the evidence is supposed to be extraordinary "“ something that will shock and compel the Nobel Laureates to glance away from their non-teleological perspective for a moment. Anything else doesn't count because it fails to overcome the convention that "ID is fundamentally unscientific." Can someone provide a list of papers where these Nobel Laureates have thought and written about ID? If there are no such papers, why would anyone think they are qualified to pass judgment on something that don't understand?
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2005 @ 11:30 am
September 17th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
I wonder why there are no Nobel laureates writing to defend intelligent design?
Comment by edarrell — September 17, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Edarrell,
Is there a reason why you don't won't to address Krauze's point?
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Mike G. -
Is there a reason why you don't want to address mine? Also, aren't you speaking about someone else's i+d theory here, and not yours? You have already accepted that "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific."
I'm ready when you are.
Arago
Comment by g arago — September 17, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
Krauze,
A nice catch indeed as Mike said. Note that the laureates' letter does not give credit to either Schönborn or Miller. What are the chances of the exact phrase "an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" being used by them by simple coincidence rather than being copied from Schönborn's or Miller's op-ed pieces? Are the chances less than 10^150?
Maybe it's a common tag line I am not familiar with. If not, I think we may have 38 Nobel Laureates guilty of plagerism here.
Another curious thing is that the letter was issued by Elie Wiesel's foundation. Why him of all people? He's a great man, but what does he have to do with the ID/Darwinism debate and why would his imprimatur mean anything? Dembski is asking the same question at uncommondescent.com and I started a thread on it at ARN.
Comment by Stuart Harris — September 17, 2005 @ 3:53 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
G. arago,
I'm not sure what point you were making. I don't see what "i+d" has to do with this thread. I never said that "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific."
Stuart raises an interesting question. Let's put them side-by-side.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. - Cardinal Sch÷Nborn
Logically derived from confirmable evidence, evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection. "“ 38 Nobel Laureates
It does indeed look as if these Nobel Laureates are responding to Sch÷Nborn, who says this view is not true, and Miller, who says this view is not part of mainstream science.
Miller is supposed to be visiting Behe's school in October. If I was Behe, I'd use the opportunity to get Miller to publicly respond to the Nobel Laureates.
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2005 @ 4:30 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
Hi Steve,
"Maybe it's a common tag line I am not familiar with. If not, I think we may have 38 Nobel Laureates guilty of plagerism here."
At first, I thought it was a semi-officiel statement that both Schönborn and the Nobel Laureates had picked up elsewhere (from a statement by a biology organization or one of Dawkins' books). But after doing some Googling, I've been unable to find any use of the phrase independent of Schönborn's op-ed.
I don't think using a turn of phrase without attributing it to whoever used it first amounts to plagarism. But the fact that the Nobel Laureates seem to have borrowed their definition of evolution from Schönborn is noteworthy. Maybe they're specifically gunning for the theistic evolutionists, with more subtlety than Sam Harris. Or maybe the initial letter was a hoax, written by someone intending to show that the signers of such statements don't look too closely at what's in front of them, as long as they think they're helping "defend science". In this connection, I can't help pointing out that there's no mention of the letter on the foundation's own home page (although that could also be a function of the page not being up to date).
"He's a great man, but what does he have to do with the ID/Darwinism debate and why would his imprimatur mean anything?"
I don't think this has much significance. If the NCSE or some other group had approached Wiesel and asked him to spearhead this, I too would wonder about their choice. But at the moment, it seems that Wiesel has himself chosen to insert himself in the debate, which is certainly the right of anyone in a free society.
What'll be interesting is what the reaction of groups like the NCSE and Panda's Thumb will be. If they use it score rhetorical points, outsiders can justifiably ask what happened to the "science isn't decided in the voting booth" slogan.
Comment by Krauze — September 17, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
I think the participation Wiesel's foundation in this does have some significance in that it shows the anti-ID camp groping for an emotive response. Mr. Wiesel is seen as a secular saint who is unassailable. Why else would he be chosen as a front man?
As I wrote on ARN, it seems very desperate and telling. Of course it goes without saying that anybody can say what they want in a free society, but it's also unseemly for him to be used and allow himself and his foundation to be used in this way.
Read the About Us page on http://www.eliewieselfoundatio.... I sure can't figure out how the ID/Darwinism debate falls under the scope of the Foundations objectives. I suspect there may be a lot of donors (and you can donate from the site) who will wonder what the Foundation is doing in this affair.
Comment by Stuart Harris — September 17, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
September 17th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Hi Krauze,
You asked,
Good point. Miller should be red in the face. The Nobel Laureates affirmed the Cardinal accurately characterized neo-Darwinian theory.
Salvador
PS
2 of the signatories were Curl and Kroto, 1996 Nobel Laureates in Chemistry.
They shared the prize with Richard Smalley. It was Smalley who said:
Richard Smalley
and
And Nobel Laureate Charles Townes said:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 17, 2005 @ 10:17 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 2:05 am
Here's what some other Nobel Laureates have said.
Comment by Pez — September 18, 2005 @ 2:05 am
September 18th, 2005 at 2:31 am
Good catch Krauze. My question is should Miller be worried? Is he trying to setup a premise for him to reconcile Neo-Darwinism with his own Catholic faith? If he wants to hold to some sort of theistic evolution, he better be quick to join the ID camp and stop playing Tiddlywinks with the materialistic Darwinists. If he insist on his view of Neo-Darwinism it may not be too long before 38 Nobel Laureates begin writing against his ignorance of Neo-Darwinism.
Comment by teleologist — September 18, 2005 @ 2:31 am
September 18th, 2005 at 11:17 am
One has to wonder if there is in the making a separate third prominent player in the ID debate, namely the theistic evolutionists. In my opinion the theistic evolutionists have been trading in gross ambiguity for a long time. In the past they have somehow avoided explaining how they can conflate contingency as Ken Miller states:
and a purposefulness and guidedness that the church espouses.
In my opinion the theology of theistic evolution is really what I call a neodeism. Here's what I would consider another example of a neodeism where the Committee on Science, Technology and Faith of The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America offers A CATECHISM OF CREATION:
What this implies though is never stated explicitly (the gross ambiguity I'm talking about) is that the purposefulness and guidedness of divine action is limited to essentially sustaining the four fundamental forces. Question is whether this meaning will fly with parishioners and pastors when it eventually comes out. I think Schönborn has already seen behind this ambiguity and believes it is incompatible with mainstream faith.
One of these days folks like Miller will have to explicitly come clean and then what? If I'm right they won't find a happy place in mainstream religion. Will the theistic evolutionists then have to either join the atheistic Darwinists or form their own group in oppostion to ID?
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 18, 2005 @ 11:17 am
September 19th, 2005 at 4:40 am
Sorry, we should clarify then. You repeatedly said ID is not scientific, didn't you? Yes, semantics are an issue here, thanks for clarifying Mike. Between the ole' rock and a hard place for you either way it seems.
Did someone say 'theistic evolutionists' or perhaps suggest those 'evolutionary creationists' (e.g. Lamoureux, Peacocke, Polkinghorne)are not prominent players in the ID 'debate'. They have certainly made their observations and written papers. Often, those observations do not support the social-political movement or pseudo-scientific theories of ID (which I call i+d, fyi Mike Gene). And specifically, they reveal the theological weaknesses of ID as a mathematical, specificationary, irreducibility theory. So the IDM and ID discussion lists rarely reference them.
Here's an article, which provides a balanced approach to ID theories, by acknowledging the scientific, philosophical and religious or theological dimensions of the movement. Apparently, this paper prompted W. Dembski to admit it is (even) possible to be Christian and believe in evolution. Of course, just which evolution's theists are allowed, according to the IDM, to believe in is another story.
http://www.calvin.edu/%7Elhaar...
…and don't forget to check your science at the door! Teleologist seems to think Miller is a heretic, heretic!
Comment by g arago — September 19, 2005 @ 4:40 am
September 19th, 2005 at 7:17 am
G. arago,
My view is that ID is not science. This is because even though I read the journal articles on a daily basis, I do not encounter any explicit consideration of ID in these articles. This, to me, is not the same as saying that ID is "fundamentally unscientific," which conveys that ID cannot be used to generate testable hypotheses that help us better understand the biotic world.
Comment by MikeGene — September 19, 2005 @ 7:17 am
September 19th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
Mike and Krauze:
There's a common theme here with the Iowa State posse that went after Gonzales at the behest of a rabidly atheist Bible scholar, and in their statement on science defined methodological naturalism as actual philosophical belief in naturalism. Namely, in these little shows of force, these guys, for whatever reason, can't seem to stop themselves from shilling for atheism, even when in PR mode. These consensus statements do them more harm than good, imo, for a couple reasons. One, trying to shut down schools of thought with peer pressure and statements of orthodoxy looks bad in and of itself. Two, that they can't seem to stay away from the metaphysics adds credence to what many already suspect: that they don't really consider metaphysics to be outside science at all, and that the reason they keep declaring ID to be inherently outside science is not because they think it's metaphysical, but rather because they find it philosophically uncomfortable, and they want science to assume and support their metaphysical preferences.
Comment by Deuce — September 19, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
Sorry, Mike Gene, but your logic (or dialectic) is muddled here. For example, you are the one who first phrased "ID is fundamentally unscientific" (11:30 a.m. Sept. 17th). Granted you were not expressing your own feelings then (rather apparent sarcasm), the difference between 'ID is unscientific' and 'ID is not science' to some people still may not mean a great deal. You even bolded the fundamentally part in your sentence. Why? Please don't try to flip the spin of your phraseology onto me.
In addition, how can you write, "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense "“ an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not," and attribute it to the Cardinal. Darwin postulated 'common descent' as in The Descent of Man, didn't he? So then how do you so neo-conveniently separate common ancestry and/or descent from neo-Darwinism? Likewise, 'unguided and unplanned' only counts for some and not for others. This artificial distraction is something some of the Nobel Prize winners also reflect in their defense of theism in the face of (age of) science. Philosophy, aside from ethics and phenomenology, is usually shamed.
As for Deuce's comments, I perhaps could agree with them, though I'm not residing in the place where such political things as 'shutting down schools of thought with peer pressure' are occuring. Really, is this current-day 'science' in America? Here, things are being freshly debated, shared and contemplated in all manner of science, philosophy and theology (or religion). Hence I wonder what's the problem with 'staying away from metaphysics' in the land of the free and the home of the braver than anyone except them-selves. Psychology often even admits of metaphysics these days.
ID is inherently outside science, ID is not science, ID is not scientific; is this simply to distract from the sharing and cooperation involved with acknowledging science, philosophy and theology (or religion) as co-heirs to the 'evolutionary' legacy? ID theories certainly take such three-factor forms.
There's something leaner than Dembski's stock of spare ribs coming in.
g. arago
Comment by g arago — September 19, 2005 @ 6:16 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Then again, there's aesthetics…wasn't it F.M. Dostoevsky who said: "Beauty will save the world"
Philosophy is still alive, even beyond American pragmatics and (ID) analytics.
Comment by g arago — September 19, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
g. arago wrties: " "if you are going to tip your systematic scientific hat toward philosophy, then what are you going to do with theology? Did you read L. Haarsma's text?" "“ Arago (to DonaldM)
There's something leaner than Dembski's stock of spare ribs coming in.
g. arago
Sorry, I'm not following you here. Can you clarify what you're driving at?
thanks
Donald M
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 7:16 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Hi DonaldM,
You mention the usefulness of philosophy, but not theology. Why? (Note: the above comment was directed to Donald's comments on another thread, but found its way here due to space and time. If it's deemed irrelevant, then bam drop it.)
But that's exactly the point. You can't encompass 'all of science.' Or can you? To me, you are limited, perspectival and finite. So why try to speak for Science? If you insist upon such speculation, then you are falling into the same trap of evolutionism when evolutionists pretend toward univeral application and thus absolutistic ideology.
ID vs. i+d…or perhaps they're the same thing after all, is a side issue to what's involved in this thread. Nobel Laureates don't buy it (ID), evolutionary biologists don't either; it's engineers, information technologists, philosophers of science and former creationists that are the mainstay (if it can be said so) of the current (non-scientific) IDM. That unhealthy balance for such an important topic (origins, processes, evolution, creation) in the discourse between science and religion or between science, philosophy and theology, friends, is unacceptable.
Hopefully that helps to clarify.
Btw, did you read L. Haarsma's text?
arago
Comment by g arago — September 19, 2005 @ 8:00 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Sorry, but I just don't see the point in trying to parse the word 'science' in this context. You're trying to make my use of the term mean something more than I intend and more than most readers would take it to mean. It's a side issue anyway to my main point.
We're all 'limited and finite'. So what? I'm not trying to speak for science. I'm merely making what I take to be a logical argument in favor of a particular position, while attempting to indetify what I take be as shortcomings of arguments used to defend the contra-position. You seem to want to take this into territory where it is not intended to go.
But as you point out, it is not relevant to this thread at least, so for now, let's leave it here. I'm sure it'll be revisted another time.
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 8:24 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
G. arago,
You say my logic is muddled, but it is not. You think I am the one who first phrased "ID is fundamentally unscientific." But you are wrong. You'll notice I was replying to Krauze in that post, who in turn was quoting the 38 Nobel Laureates. They were the ones who claimed, "In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." I bolded the fundamentally part because it helps us to see that these Nobel Laureates reject ID because they think it violates some principle. That is why they would need some sensational, Earth-shattering discovery to fall into their laps before they would be able to consider ID.
You claimed, "You have already accepted that "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific." This was misinformation and I corrected it. It is true that the 38 Nobel Laureates (and many more) think "ID is (fundamentally) unscientific." So I ponder the sociological implications that follows from this widespread belief.
Because that is what he wrote. Read his essay.
Because they are separate. Neo-Darwinism is a proposed mechanism for evolution.
Comment by MikeGene — September 19, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
September 20th, 2005 at 11:21 am
I do not see the paragraph of the Episocpal catechism as espousing a God of the four forces, but rather it does so in its final statement at the end, while denying such a thing at the beginning. And the two parts don't add up coherently.
This –"Physicist Howard J. Van Till has written that God has creatively and generously given the creation all of the powers and capacities "in the beginning" that enable it to organize and transform itself into the variety of atoms, molecules, chemical elements, galaxies, stars, and planets in the universe, and species of living things on this earth."
seems to be very much in line with Denton's views in Nature's Destiny. Is Denton considered a proponent of ID? Such a view may deny the need for design of purported irreducibly complex systems such as the flagellum, but it most certainly argues for design and purpose.
Before that happens, the questions about IC and information may have progressed and become clearer.
I don't think they can join the Darwinists because they have moved the need for design and purpose to a different spot.
Comment by onething — September 20, 2005 @ 11:21 am