Obsolete Critique
by MikeGeneJohn Moore from the National Post attempts to define ID. Yet when his claims are viewed from the perspective of The Design Matrix, he's shooting blanks:
ID is often referred to as Creationism light. In fact it's more Creationism in drag.
Cute, but false. The Design Matrix does not argue against evolution, it explores the manner in which evolution may have been shaped by design.
Though its proponents claim scientific neutrality, they are usually overtly religious people affiliated with overtly religious institutions.
False. While I am a theist, I am not overtly religious. Furthermore, I am not affiliated with any overtly religious institution, any religious institution, or any institution. I come to the table as a truly independent voice.
They have written essays and books about why ID is science.
False. I have never written an essay about why ID is science. The Design Matrix acknowledges that ID is not science and moves beyond this culture war dispute.
And yet when all the sophistry is boiled down, the theory amounts to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them."
False. The Design Matrix does not boil down to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them."
It may be a sublime idea worthy of religious and philosophical contemplation, but it fails to meet the definition of science.
Irrelevant. There is no compelling reason to think science is capable of determining whether or not life was designed. Because science has not come up with a objective methodology for resolving this issue, I move on and begin contemplating alternative methods of inquiry.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I don't understand this (incorrect) criticism of ID… could we not also say about Darwinism:
Comment by Avonwatches — June 24, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Mike, did you forget that you are not a representative sample of IDM?
For typical ID fare, one should visit the DI site or run over to UD where the current hot topic is Theistic Evolutionists, Your Position Is Incoherent "” But We Can Help You!
Comment by olegt — June 24, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Yes olegt, you recognize that I am neither a part of the IDM nor am I representative of their views. But there is no evidence the majority of ID critics make this distinction and there are plenty of critics who would be eager to lump me with the IDM. Thus, I think it is important that I continuously point out that the criticisms raised by Moore don't apply to me and thus fail as criticisms of my views.
Besides, you should note that I include a important qualification in the very beginning of the OP:
Comment by MikeGene — June 24, 2008 @ 11:04 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Well put, Mike.
Comment by kornbelt888 — June 24, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
June 24th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Hi Avon,
Well, I have seen, on many occasions, IDers argue the existence of IC or CSI could not be explained by natural causes, thus they must have been designed. After all, mainstream ID does seem to focus on the negative, trying to argue that evolution cannot explain this or that.
Not really. I don't recall seeing any non-teleologists argue that some feature must have come into existence by random variation and natural selection.
Typically, random variation and natural selection are the fulcrum of the debate, where both sides seems to think it is a default position. The reason I think many IDers view it as a default position is because they think they have to defeat it to allow design as an explanation. My own position does not attempt to defeat it; it incorporates it.
Comment by MikeGene — June 24, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Mike, you can't criticise him for writing statements that don't fit your version of ID when your version is not what people mean when they say ID in the general parlance. You need a different term for your beliefs.
Comment by steve — June 25, 2008 @ 2:17 am
June 25th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Steve, you are yet another in a long line of people who suck at the internet . That has already been addressed . You should lurk more.
Comment by Guts — June 25, 2008 @ 2:36 am
June 25th, 2008 at 8:22 am
I'm confused. I thought the idea was to use directed intuition to develop an eventual scientific hypothesis, intuition being a tried and true method of scientific inquiry. As opposed to, say, slogging through data, inching towards a solution. You want to abandon science? Perhaps you could clarify this.
Comment by Zachriel — June 25, 2008 @ 8:22 am
June 25th, 2008 at 8:24 am
MikeGene wrote:
You're missing the point, Mike. By your own admission, you are a red herring. If someone writes about ID they usually have in mind more typical specimens. The Wikipedia entry on intelligent design lists Dr. Dr. Dembski, Michael Behe and Phillip Johnson, among other. It doesn't mention Mike Gene.
Likewise, I see no reason to think that Moore had you in mind when he wrote his opinion piece. In fact, his column was written in response to the movie Expelled. That movie portrays ID in the frame of religious freedom. In Ben Stein's own words,
Don't blame Moore. If you want to untangle yourself from the religious side of ID, maybe you should call whatever you preach something else.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 8:24 am
June 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I don't know where any major ID proponent claimed "scientific neutrality". Whether someone is biased or not, whatever their religious affiliations are shouldn't be relevant to the questions being discussed. I never said I was "scientifically neutral" nor have I have I heard any major ID proponent say so either.
That is not what they say, living things are analogous to complicated things which humans engineer, therefore an intelligence is suggested. That intuition is so strong Crick had to admonish that biologists have to constantly remined themselves that biology "is not designed."
The outcome of quantum experiments can be complicated, I don't presume that they evidence intelligence in the same way that biology evidences intelligence. There are lots of complicated things in the world I woudn't presume to evidence intelligence in the same way biology evidences intelligence.
I don't seem to recall many essays about "why ID is science". Google the phrase, and see how many hits you get with ID proponents arguing that vigorously….
Stephen Meyer wrote:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 25, 2008 @ 8:54 am
June 25th, 2008 at 9:00 am
olegt,
could you show how Moore's critiques can be applied to Behe?
You think that Mike doesn't represent the more typical strand of ID.
You include:
You then suggest to Mike to change the name of what he "preaches" (pretty clever, professor) to untangle himself with the religious side.
By your use of the word "preach" I'm going to assume that you really don't think the two can be divorced from each other.
What about Behe?
He appears to be just as devout as Ken Miller. Both think that their science wrt biology is independent of their religious practices. Neither denies evolution nor common ancestry.
Comment by Doug — June 25, 2008 @ 9:00 am
June 25th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Doug, though I suppose English is your native tongue, you might still benefit from looking up the verb preach in a dictionary. You'll find that it isn't always used in the literal sense. Best wishes.
P. S. Behe does not accept evolution in the orthodox scientific form.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 9:47 am
June 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ah yes. Orthodoxy. The great virtue of academia.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 9:57 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:01 am
What's so bad about orthodoxy, Bradford? Newtonian mechanics is orthodox. So is classical electrodynamics. I thought conservatives were generally fond of orthodoxy. Not in this case?
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 10:01 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:14 am
olegt:
You're not likely to incur much wrath by touting classical physics or those whose work brought it about are you? I'm fond of free thinkers. The real ones. Not the phonies who put their fingers in the air to test the wind before saying something.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 10:14 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Bradford, you didn't answer my question. Once again, what's so bad about orthodoxy in science? To help you along, imagine no orthodoxy in science: we throw away Newtonian mechanics, geometrical optics, Maxwell's equations. How do you feel about that?
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 10:20 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Nothing wrong with Newton and Maxwell. I did not refer to them in my initial comment did I? You did write: "Behe does not accept evolution in the orthodox scientific form." So what?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 10:29 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Bradford, you wrote, sarcastically I presume,
When I gave you a couple of examples of scientific orthodoxy, you didn't find anything wrong with them. What was the point of your sarcastic remark, then?
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 10:35 am
June 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Let me put you to the test then. Are you satisfied with the sufficiency of scientific evidence supporting the contention that global warming is a result of fossil fuel emissions? Is the debate over?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 10:39 am
June 25th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Bradford, I don't think climate science is as well established as Newtonian mechanics. There are outstanding questions like the temperature of the troposphere. It's work in progress.
Now it's your turn to answer my question.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 11:06 am
June 25th, 2008 at 11:12 am
So then the debate is not closed with all due respect to the Noble Peace Prize winner. Do you believe energy policies should be based on works in progress?
My experience with academia indicates that orthodoxy is indeed in vogue although it is not the orthodoxy of Newton or Maxwell that concerns me. Pushing specific socio-political values on young impressionable students is a greater concern. Orthodoxy need not be confused with intellectual integrity.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 11:12 am
June 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Mike,
This discussion is like déjà vu so I won't bother repeating the points olegt already made. Your point seems to be that Moore is committing the Spotlight Fallacy which you claim is an unfair generalization. Based on this you claim his statements are false, but to truly show his statements are false you would have to show that his generalization is meaningless or invalid. Otherwise you are simply redefining the terms used in his argument which at best creates a Red Herring and a worst is creating a Straw Man.
In other words, you are claiming his statements are false because they do not apply to the DM. We all agree that they do not apply, but this in no way proves his statements are false. Adding "from the perspective of the DM" does not allow you to claim his words are false, rather it creates a Red Herring. I might say, "Oranges only grow in warm climates," to which you have replied, "From the perspective of Apples your statement is false, apples also grow in cold climates."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 11:14 am
June 25th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Todd:
Not difficult.
Doesn't even rise to the level of cleverness.
What's an overtly religious institution? Religious beliefs? As relevant as atheistic ones. Meaningless. Invalid.
Brain stuck in cliche mode. Invalid.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 11:42 am
June 25th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hi olegt,
He still accepts common ancestry and he, like others in academic circles (who aren't catching heat from Moore), disputes the mechanism driving evolution. He doesn't even say that those mechanisms are wrong, just that he feels they are unable to account for all of the molecular machines and biotic diversity we see.
Also,
English is my native tongue…. growing up and having various discussions and debates (in english) the verb "to preach" is not typically used in an endearing manner. Maybe you should have specified that the use of "preach" was not in the manner that most would assume…. especially when considering the nature of this debate, and the fact that your post was about disentangling one's self with religious preconceptions.
Comment by Doug — June 25, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Doug
Could you clarify what you mean by "evolution" here? Is it the broad sense, that species change over time (accepted even by YEC advocates) or the more narrow definition, the modern theory of evolution as accepted by mainstream science?
When olegt questions your claim, you responded:
Sure, but you made a distinction between evolution and common ancestry; I am interested in the evolution part.
This would seem to imply that Behe rejects (or at least disputes) the modern theory of evolution. He is a signatory of the DI's so-called Scientific Dissent from Darwinism as well. This would be in contrast to Miller, I believe, who accepts the modern theory of evolution (perhaps accepting that it is incomplete).
Looking through the parts of the article Mike quotes in the OP, they do seem to apply to Behe as far as I can see. Behe is certainly religious. I believe he has written about why ID is science. His IC argument sure does boil down to "living things are complicated. Some-one must have made them."
Comment by The Pixie — June 25, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
And Dawkins is an atheist so is there some broader point to that observation?
As opposed to a cell is complicated. It must have arisen through some sort of unknown non-telic process.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Bradford wrote:
Orthodoxy in vogue is an oxymoron, Bradford. Orthodox science stays around for centuries, be it classical mechanics, electrodynamics, or theory of evolution. Yes, Bradford, science is a conservative enterprise that preserves the old knowledge and looks carefully before accepting new developments. Thinking of well-established scientific theories as fashionable trends is plain silly.
But to tell the truth, Bradford, you didn't even stop to think for a moment when you picked up the right-wing talking point Darwinian orthodoxy. It's a nice sound bite but it doesn't make sense. Orthodoxy isn't bad. It's part of the deal. Get used to it.
By telling which parts of orthodox (and not-so-orthodox) science you don't like you expose the real reasons behind it. Evolution leaves no gaps for the Christian God and climate science endangers your right to drive a pickup truck. I know that this is a stereotype, but it works in most cases. I'll be glad to know that you have other reasons to object against these branches of science.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Bradford
Pixie: Looking through the parts of the article Mike quotes in the OP, they do seem to apply to Behe as far as I can see. Behe is certainly religious.
The issue is whether Behe fits the archetype described in the referenced article. He is overtly religious, so he fits that point. Dawkin is overtly atheist, so he fails to fit the archetype.
No, Bradford, as opposed to real science. That is kind of the point.
Comment by The Pixie — June 25, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Ken Miller on Behe's evolution:
http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The archetype is a product of the author's stupidity.
As opposed to a cell is complicated. It must have arisen through some sort of unknown non-telic process.
Real science cannot provide empirical evidence documenting the origin of a cell. So if a flippant characterization of Behe's ideas is appropriate take the cue.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
My experience with academia indicates that orthodoxy is indeed in vogue although it is not the orthodoxy of Newton or Maxwell that concerns me. Pushing specific socio-political values on young impressionable students is a greater concern. Orthodoxy need not be confused with intellectual integrity.
Olegt did you bother to read what I wrote? The orthodoxy of concern to me was specified as socio-political in nature and your response again alludes to classical physics theories. I don't doubt that science can become corrupted by political correctness which is why I brought up the evidence for the fossil fuel/global warming connection. But even there the pressure to follow group think originates outside the scientific world.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Bradford,
Can you name a scientific law or equation that was "corrupted by political correctness?" Thanks in advance.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Can you cite the specific equation that ties global warming to fossil fuel emissions?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
olegt,
Why 'law or equation'? That's an awfully specific addition, and a departure from what Bradford said.
"I don't doubt that science can become corrupted by political correctness which is why I brought up the evidence for the fossil fuel/global warming connection."
Are you asking about any science that has been corrupted by political correctness? Or are you saying that equations and laws are science, and everything else is something other than science? May as well know where you're going with this, especially when you're saying things like..
What nonsense. Evolution makes no commentary on the Christian God one way or the other. Climate science endangers nothing, because it's just a collection of data and explanations for the data. Humans argue evolution has something to say about God, and humans argue for certain environmental or economic policies/actions with some (note: not complete, or nearly so) reference to climate science. But an opinion or attitude informed by science is not itself science, no matter what number or class of people hold it.
Comment by nullasalus — June 25, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
That's an unscientific bit of dogma for a physicist. What law of physics explains the source of natural laws or of a cell for that matter.
Is it OK to drive a Mercedes? There are no pickups in my neighborhood.
Stereotypes are OK for sheltered profs but where's the scientific data supporting the claim? Your tank is empty.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Bradford
Is that the best you can do? When reason fails, bring out the insults.
No, it cannot, but it is taking steps in the right direction (i.e., building a case for a reasonable hypothesis, which is the best that it can do).
Can you really not see the differences? Real science is working towards a positive hypothesis of what might have happened, looking for whatever evidence might be available to support the scenario. Behe et al. shy away from any anything but the vaguest of hypotheses, and seem to have no interest in finding evidence that supports that hypothesis (as opposed to evidence that supposedly refutes the mainstream theory).
To be fair, I think the primary ID arguments boil down to two: "it looks complex, it must be designed" and "it is analogous to something that is designed, so it is probably designed too".
I think Pez's quote of Miller is very interesting, as it shows that Behe is a lot closer to me than to you with regards to what science we accept, and yet he still ticks the boxes for IDist that is - so you assert - merely the product of the author's stupidity.
Here is a piece by Behe, in which he argues that living things are complicated so someone must have made them, and then argues for that ID should be let into science, for example:
Comment by The Pixie — June 25, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The Pixie,
More like 'Design is the one thing we're certain exists, and it's demonstrably capable of achieving fantastic complexity, in ever-increasing scope and intricacy.' So maybe ruling it all out as 'illusion' and arguing that things are clearly not designed because we can imagine, somehow, their not being designed is, I dunno. Unscientific?
If ID-opponents were serious about having a clear line between science and philosophy, they'd be vastly more pro-active about ripping apart claims of 'undesigned' or 'random/chance' or otherwise as unscientific, or at least misleading (Since 'Not designed/foreseen by humans' != 'Not part of a Designer's plan'). Instead, the griping seems to be more than some ID proponents are engaging in abuse that used to be the exclusive arena of ID opponents.
Comment by nullasalus — June 25, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
It's not a single equation, Bradford, it's a serious of equations and empirical laws. In a nutshell, the concentration of carbon dioxide affects the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared—the more CO2, the less transparent the atmosphere (Beer-Lambert law). Since the Earth cools primarily by emitting infrared radiation into space, the reduced amount of IR radiation means a reduced ability to cool down. This is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law of radiation. Then there are a number of other things that affect the equilibrium temperature: heat absorption by the oceans, convection in the atmosphere, cloud formation etc. I'm sure I have forgotten a few, but this would be a good start.
Now, I have answered your question, at least to some extent. Your turn.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
olegt:
Alas, oleg. The "theory of evolution" hasn't been around for centuries, isn't "as established as gravity," and has always suffered explanatory holes.
See, no one around here claims evolution doesn't happen. Mostly we claim that classical Neodarwinism (the pablum known as RM-NS) can't account for it. What we don't know looms large. Science has been publishing some cool new research lately. Check out:
Scientists Fix Bugs In Our Understanding of Evolution.
WHAT?! You may exclaim, there are "bugs" in our understanding? Our sequencing hasn't told us all we need to know? Did they actually mean what they said when they said…
??? Or consider just how unreliable the sequences might be from any given cell in any given body, per what they looked like when they were just a fertilized egg…
Our Genome Change Over Lifetime.
Sure, that's epigenetic rather than genetic, but epigenetic mechanisms related to expression are largely heritable, and do not remain static during life - methylation of DNA does qualify as 'change'. Genomes are more dynamic than thought (though Charlie Darwin thought none of it, he'd never heard of a genome), and quite a bit more variable and environmentally responsive in and out of species divisions than 'orthodoxy' ever believed or allowed anyone else to believe.
There are times when 'orthodoxy' stands directly in the path of knowledge and must be swept away. "Neodarwinian Orthodoxy" has been in need of that for way too long, and if it were real science it would have been scrapped in the last century for good.
If life is designed, science is just the human tool to quantify it so the knowledge can be put to good use - for all of us. Nobody's metaphyical beliefs or fears trump that intelligently designed job description for science, and nobody's oversized ego should be allowed to block the path. It doesn't matter to science who or what final causation may be. It seeks efficient causation and physical mechanisms, for our practical purposes.
'Orthodoxy' shouldn't be a politburo or a protection racket. Drop the metaphyical knee-jerk and you might even learn to appreciate biology and evolution for what they are, even if they're not what you wanted them to be.
Comment by Joy — June 25, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Nullasalus, I asked Bradford to give an example of political correctness corrupting science. I'm fairly certain that he has no idea what exactly that means. It's another conservative talking point—alongside the "Darwinian orthodoxy"—that he swallowed—hook, line and sinker—but did not digest.
I fully agree with you that evolutionary biology makes no claims about the Christian God. That's not its magistrate. I am talking about conservative Christians who are upset by evolution. Ponder the difference.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
olegt,
No, you asked for Bradford to give an example of political correctness corrupting a 'scientific law or equation'. I pointed out that was vastly more narrow than a corruption of science.
You'd like examples of political correctness corrupting science? Easy: Lysenkoism. The initial difficulties of mainstream acceptance of the Big Bang. Germany's attitude towards "Jewish Science". All this before getting to the sort of nonsense that goes on in the "soft sciences", or on hot-button questions. Do fish feel pain? Depends on how sympathetic you are towards animal rights movements, apparently. What about the charges levelled at Stephen Jay Gould and others that their perspective on science and biology was in part driven by underlying sociopolitical factors? What about their response that their critics were often in part driven by same?
You may want to wonder if years of pin-sticking by Dawkins, Stenger, and other lesser-known atheists re: evolution has anything to do with that problem. Did anyone really think that turning a blind eye to men and women like this - arguing that science shows there is no God - would not result in their deciding to play by the same rules, and argue science shows there is a God?
Comment by nullasalus — June 25, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hi The Pixie,
[edit: first sentence edited for harshness]
Somebody who's been around as long as you have and has been corrected as often as you have should not be making the claim you just did.
You know full well that this is not what Behe is arguing.
What he is arguing, and you know this, is in answer to Darwin's challenge:
Behe argues that the artifacts in question could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.
He does not say 'these things are complex so somebody made them, rather, he points to
etc. and says "that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed".
Nobody's asking you to agree with him but it's been a dozen years, at least get this much right.
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Good point on Lysenkoism, nullasalus. Scientists can be wrong and abusive, but eventually things get straightened out. It might take a decade or two to fix the problem. In Lysenko's case, it took some 30 years thanks to the Soviet political system. Note also that the opposition to Lysenko that triggered his eventual demise came not from outside political sources but from within the Soviet academia itself. Scientists were well aware that Lysenko's stuff was bogus, but he had friends in high places. I don't think there is such scientific opposition in climate science. There are a few vocal dissenters egged on by political and business interests, but there is no major dissent.
Not so well on the Big Bang. Hubble's observation of the red shift was accepted quickly by many, including Einstein himself, who went in person to Mt Wilson to congratulate Hubble on his discovery a couple of years after it. The discovery of the background microwave radiation in 1965 quickly convinced nearly everyone, with the exception of a few vocal dissenters such as Fred Hoyle. But Hoyle was a proponent of a competing theory (steady-state universe), so that doesn't surprise anyone.
As to Dawkins et al., there's no point in blaming them. Creationists opposed evolution well before Dawkins and Gould were even born.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
So far we have three arguments for ID:
"Its really complex therefore god* did it."
"Its analogous to human designs therefore god did it."
And Joy's apparent favorite:
"Science is broken so they are wrong therefore god it."
Whew, that's an impressive collection of arguments, I don't see how Moore can possibly justify his complaints ;).
* feel free to substitute Space Aliens, Quantum Quackery, Time Travelling Humans, Invisible Pink Unicorns, or Spaghetti Monsters for "god" in the above arguments
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Hi Todd,
You've mistaken the Pixie's strawman for an ID argument.
Comment by Pez — June 25, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Pez,
I was simply adding one argument to Pixie's list for completeness sake since the false dichotomy of "Darwin/Biologists/Evolution/Science was/is wrong therefore we're right" is a common mistake among ID-supporting lay-persons. If these arguments are a straw man than please tell me the pro-ID argument that cannot be grossly generalized to one of these three statements.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
olegt,
I have no real dog in the climate science fight, personally, but I don't think the scenario divides neatly between 'people who agree that there is a large man-made component to climate change' and 'people who disagree'. There are people who agree, but who don't think the impact will be as severe as forecasted. Or who agree with the forecasts, but disagree with the ways to address the problem. And there is a considerable aspect of 'if global warming is true, then my preferred policy change is the only way to deal with it', which is disastrous to say the least.
It doesn't matter so much to me, as I strongly favor a switch towards renewable resources, cleaner fuels, more efficient distribution methods in trade, etc as a matter of course. If global warming were all bunk, I'd still be in favor of a greater emphasis on solar panels, biofuel/biodiesel, nuclear plants, local farms, and otherwise.
As for the Big Bang, I wasn't thinking of Hubble, but of Lemaitre. Yes, eventually enough evidence was provided that appropriately shifted the perspective, but there was a resistance and dislike to the concept at first, and said resistance wasn't exactly rooted in purely scientific concerns.
Dawkins and others are simply continuing a tradition that started well before they were around. I did not say they shoulder all the responsibility - but they certainly shoulder quite a lot. If there is a risk of mixing science with politics, philosophy, and theology, then let's be serious about drawing the lines. If the risk is merely that someone with a less popular view will engage in the same abuses that the majority do, I find it hard to take complaints about 'threats' seriously.
I also think it's a mistake to believe that problems like Lysenkoism will just sort themselves out over decades. Nor do I think it was eventually solved by the academia (When it's scientists versus scientists, why are the ones everyone believes to be right 'the academia'?) - failure to deliver the material goods did that episode in more than anything. And I don't think science, much less 'academia' in general, is exactly pure as is. Not by a longshot.
Todd B,
As opposed to what? 'The universe just happens to randomly spit out brilliant displays of order and orchestration by chance'? Wow, get my sunglasses, I'm being blinded by the light of reason over here. If nothing else, we know that design truly does exist at least to some degree. The mindless chaos that just happens to unintentionally spit out order, intelligent beings, and science is merely postulated*.
* By pagan religious traditions, no less.
Comment by nullasalus — June 25, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Hi olegt,
I don't miss that point at all. That's why I began with the qualification: "Yet when his claims are viewed from the perspective of The Design Matrix, he's shooting blanks."
I never said or implied that he did.
Just as I did not say he had me in mind, no where do I blame Moore. I simply point out the fact that when his claims are viewed from the perspective of The Design Matrix, he's shooting blanks. I then demonstrate this.
Why in the world do you think that would make a difference? For example, I've made it clear countless times in the past that I am not a creationist, yet this has never stopped countless critics from labeling me a creationist.
Comment by MikeGene — June 25, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Hi Todd,
It is meaningless and invalid when applied to my views. And it's just not me. After eight years of crossing paths with other ID types on the internet, many of those assertions would not apply to many of them either.
No, all I am doing is accurately noting that his criticisms against the ID movement fail against my views.
When viewed from the perspective of the DM, the statements are indeed false.
I think I see the problem. How about if next time I consider another set of obsolete critiques, I write "does not apply" instead of "false?"
Yes, the truth of Moore's claims depends on the perspective. Perhaps Moore should be more careful and qualify his claims to read "many/most of its proponents" instead of "its proponents." It's not a good idea to mix universal truths with sociological claims. People are more complicated than oranges.
Comment by MikeGene — June 25, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Because valid scientific theories make specific and detailed claims they are a lot harder to generalize in the absurd, but a more fair generalization would be to say, "Predictable and understandable natural forces could explain everything we observe."
We know lots or things exist including, oh say, Chemistry. How do you end up agreeing that "design exists therefor life might be the result of design" yet you seem to reject the identically hollow but equally valid argument that "chemistry exists therefore life might be the result of chemistry?" (Just to be clear, both those arguments are juvenile philosophy at best). And science is merely postulated? First the word "chaos" has the wrong implications, the generalization that "science says everything is caused by randomness" is simply incorrect. Things like chemistry and physics cannot be generalized as "mindless chaos" since they are largely deterministic but I'll play along. Second, I would say that we have many examples of "mindless chaos" forming "order." Examples like gravity causing clouds of gas to form into solar systems, or crystal formations, or lipids forming into bubbles in water, or fairy rings. So even ID supporters know that order can form from "mindless chaos." We also know that a human grows from a single unintelligent cell into an intelligent being through natural means. At some point in your life mere chemistry and physics managed to create an intelligent being. So your attempt at trivializing science fails to hold up and we still don't have an ID argument that violates one of my provided stereotypes.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Yes, that was exactly my point. You can certainly and trivially claim Moore's complaints do not apply but claiming they are false is a whole other issue. Your complaints about Moore's generalizations will become more and more valid the more your theory gains acceptance and replaces the evolution denialist perspective that is still preached from many pulpits.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
MikeGene wrote:
The benefit is obvious: next time someone writes about ID, you won't work yourself up into a lather responding to it.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Todd B,
Then it's unfortunate for you that "natural" has next to no practical meaning, and little philosophical meaning besides. More a shame that "observable and understandable" wouldn't even qualify as a promissory note here, but as an expression of utter hope.
We weren't talking about valid scientific theories here, but why someone would conclude that nature is designed rather than not designed. Science itself isn't capable of addressing that question, and both conclusions can be generalized in the absurd - easily.
Since when did I reject chemistry playing a role in the OoL? While I have great respect for the views of Bradford and others' views on the OoL, I don't think the design issue is settled there. RNA World? Deep Sea Vents? Gold's theory? Panspermia? Take your pick. All options any designer could choose to employ is so desired.
To say life arose as "the result of chemistry" is to say nothing about whether design was in play or not. If we ever create life from nonlife in the laboratory purely through chemical means, we'll have simultaneously proven that chemical abiogenesis is possible, as is designed chemical abiogenesis.
No - disorder, chaos, and unintended chance resulting in our universe, our planet, our evolution, etc is postulated. Science certainly exists, development of the mind as it is. Where did I make any attack on science here?
Apparently "mindless chaos" also cooked my dinner today. All that went on was a series of physical interactions, chemicals being mixed around, heat being applied, and voila - breaded chicken, macaroni and cheese, and some apple.
Mindless chaos also provides this forum. Why, it's all just a swirl of 0s and 1s when you get right down to it. Add in some rules, and rules on top of rules, and voila - you have a program environment.
The point here is that things we do not understand, or that a human did not personally plan, does not indicate 'mindless chaos'. Even if a given event or situation has no mind present in its workings, does not mean a mind is uninvolved. I didn't need to get into the oven to cook this meal.
Yes - no child has ever been conceived intentionally, no animal has ever been bred intentionally. 'Mere' physics and chemistry were all that was in play. Alert the parents and farmers.
All that does is back up my point: 'Mere' chemistry and physics are just one more tool in the service of minds, sometimes remotely, sometimes intimately. This we know, with our current state of scientific and technological advancement. We accomplish more with each passing day. The justification for ruling out everything we see as someone else's accomplishment was weak to begin with, but between science and simulation, it's never been weaker.
Your reading comprehension is in question. I haven't trivialized science once - I've questioned conclusions about the existence or lack of God/big-d Design by way of restating the argument in a grossly exaggerated, silly way. You somehow tried to equate 'the universe was borne out of unintended chaos' to 'there are scientific explanations of some parts of nature, so clearly by unintended chaos you meant science', and failed miserably.
I don't believe science can detect design on the level of God. Nor can it rule it out. Science simply doesn't have that capability, and never will. And the idea that 'All of existence is rooted in mindless chaos and unintended chance' is far and away sillier than 'All of existence is rooted in mind and design' for my money. Mind and design, at least, we know does exist. True undirected chaos and chance is merely postulated as a metaphysical entity, and on the whole less convincing.
Comment by nullasalus — June 25, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
You haven't answered the question which you will undoubtedly ignore again. I did not ask for an explanation about the effect of atmospheric CO2. Here is what I asked many comments ago: Are you satisfied with the sufficiency of scientific evidence supporting the contention that global warming is a result of fossil fuel emissions? Is the debate over? Maybe you do not know the answer or are too proud to admit this so let me help. There are conflicting studies related to the effects of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. However, there is no ambiguity about political views on tha matter. A significant, but much ignored study, by Friedericke Wagner, Bent Aaby and Henk Visscher, produced data indicating that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have varied over geologic time periods when there were no human sources of CO2 emissions and more importantly the elevated levels of CO2 may be an effect of climatic changes rather than a cause of them. The study included gauging fossilized leaves for stomata counts and the figures obtained indicate elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 have been historically cyclical, previously at levels corresponding to present levels and clearly not as a result of human input as these measurements correspond to pre-industrial eras. They also hypothesized a link between falling ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 content but indicated that CO2 levels are driven by changes in ocean temperature and not driving climate change. When scientific evidence is inconclusive why are political policies one sided- ignoring some data in favor of other?
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
nullasalus:
I agree. I don't have a dog in the fight either but it needs to be pointed out that despite declarations that the debate is over, the data itself is far from conclusive. A premature ending to the debate would be driven by politics and not one-sided scientific evidence.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Bradford, I answered your question a while ago:
To expand on it, I find the evidence fairly convincing. While temperature changed in the past, it did so on a much longer time scale. Furthermore, past changes were tied to various natural events such as changes in the Earth's axial tilt and large changes in the Sun's output power. This time we don't have any natural explanations (not that people aren't trying to come up with them) and we do have quickly rising CO2 levels.
P. S. In the future, Bradford, try to answer my questions instead of deflecting them with yours. If you continue this practice, our conversations will stop.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Todd B.:
I double-dog dare you to lift any statement of mine anywhere here (or at ARN) asserting that "god did it" (or space aliens, quantum quackery, time traveling humans, invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters).
I find it very offensive that you'd flat-out lie just to re-assert a stereotype that you already know very well doesn't apply. Stop it.
nullasalus:
Nor was it without career casualties. I'd lob Harlow Shapley into the mix, if only because he was nearly as fond of ruining people smarter than him as Isaac Newton was.
Comment by Joy — June 25, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
What time scale are you presently envisioning? During several decades in the middle of the 20th century average temperatures were less than the mean. The advent of the industrual revolution is but yesterday in geologic terms. The main thrust of my comments was socio-political. It is within that realm of academia that group think abounds.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Bradford,
If you want to average out temperature oscillations from things like Southern oscillation (El Nino/La Nina) you need to look on the scale of a century. See this figure. The temperature shot up very quickly starting from the 1800s. Compare it to the speed of previous variations and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hi Todd,
When viewed from the perspective of the DM, the statements are indeed false.
My points are indeed valid if such stereotypes are applied to my views. In the meantime you need to remember that many new eyes see this blog each day. If Moore's perceptions are indeed common, then the right thing to do is to periodically inform the new people that such complaints fail against my views.
Comment by MikeGene — June 25, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Bradford,
Wagner et al. are talking about changes in the CO2 concentration on the scale of 25 parts per million (ppm) over 300 years (abstract). Over the 20th century the CO2 concentration increased by 80 ppm or so. The rate of increase is higher by a factor of 10.
Comment by olegt — June 25, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Moreover, some of his claims fail against other ID proponents such as the fellows of the DI.
Jonathan Wells would strenuosly object to :
The outcome of a tornado shattering a forrest is complex. We do not view that as an artifact of intelligence in the same way we view the complexity of a computer. That is an important distiction. Wells view of complexity seems very much in line with chapter 3 of Design Matrix.
As if being overtly religous is a disqualification from being scientifcally neutral, or more importantly being scientifically effective. I recall NIST Physicist Bill Philipps getting on his knees to thank God when he was notified he won the Nobel Prize…or Francis Collins calling DNA "The Language of God."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 25, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I've seen conflicting views like this one for example. It matters to me that rhetoric reflect reality. When an issue is declared settled it should be just that. I've tirelessly pointed this out with reference to life's orign. If a matter is truly settled consensus soon follows.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Sorry Joy, I only meant to mock your occasional rants against Big Science and not to attribute you with any false statement. Tell me who your favorite candidate for the Designer behind ID is and I'll add it to my list. Or is your point simply that you refuse to take a stance on who the designer might be? I consider "unspecified seemingly magical being" to be compatible with the term "god."
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 25, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
June 25th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Salvador:
Point well made. It is the nature of complexity that is significant. The complexity of cellular function is centered around information encoding and expression. This is a fundamentally different type of complexity and never observed to arise from natural forces except through the replication of parent cells. Tracing that ancestral line eventually brings one to a causal dead end.
Comment by Bradford — June 25, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
June 26th, 2008 at 5:51 am
nullasalus
If you want to say ID boils down to that, then that is fine with me.
Actually we are certain selection exists, we are certain variation exists and we are certain inheritance exists (at least, as certain as we are that design exists). Furthermore, we are certain that selection, variation and inheritance apply to living organisms, while design does not.
Furthermore, science does not rule out design as illusion (Dawkins argues that the apparent design in nature can be explained by natural processes, and so could be illusion; he cannot know for sure that it is an illusion, and so cannot rule design out). What science rules out is the pseudo-science of the DI - because it is not science.
Can you point me to these claims of 'undesigned' or 'random/chance'. I am not sure how they might be unscientific.
Pez
Oop, my bad. Yes, Behe was using the "it is analogous to something that is designed, so it is probably designed too" argument.
Comment by The Pixie — June 26, 2008 @ 5:51 am
June 26th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Indeed, your bad.
And Behe's argument is to demonstrate that analogy and why it is of the kind that warrants his inference.
Comment by Pez — June 26, 2008 @ 6:16 am
June 26th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Hi The Pixie,
I've seen you arguing two different positions on "undirected", "undesigned", "random/chance", etc.
1) You've said that science does not rule on this and that you would be surprised (as you subsequently were when presented the evidence ) to find these words in (modern) textbooks and journals describing MET.
2) You've said these are scientific claims with regard to MET and ought to be taught.
Before Nullasalus wastes his time presenting you arguments to satisfy your question he might appreciate your clarifying which position you are taking today and exactly what it is you are asking him for.
Are you saying that the claims are unscientific but that they are not made with reference to MET?
Are you saying that the claims are made but that they are scientific?
Comment by Pez — June 26, 2008 @ 7:10 am
June 26th, 2008 at 7:31 am
nullasalus wrote:
I don't see any evidence for much opposition to Lemaitre, either. His theoretical work was done in 1927. At that time Einstein had all the reasons to say: "Your calculations are correct, but your grasp of physics is abominable." Experimental data of the time were consistent with a stationary Universe.
The situation changed 2 years later when Hubble discovered that the light of remote galaxies is red-shifted, just like Lemaitre predicted. Encouraged by Eddington, Lemaitre published his theory in Nature in 1931. Two years later, Einstein and Lemaitre gave a series of talks in California and Einstein had this to say about his colleague's work: "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened." In the space of the next two years, Lemaitre was inducted into the Royal Academy of Belgium and received the Francqui Prize.
So it looks like Lemaitre's theory was recognized and accepted within a fairly short time frame—8 years.
Comment by olegt — June 26, 2008 @ 7:31 am
June 26th, 2008 at 7:55 am
nullasalus wrote:
Lysenko was brought down thanks to the efforts by Kapitza, Zel'dovich, Sakharov and Ginzburg, his fellow members of the academy. (They were physicists, to be sure, but that's just because the field of biology has been thoroughly cleansed.)
What you don't seem to appreciate, nullasalus, is that the academia is not a solid block but a loose collection of individual scientists with their own interests. They compete with one another. Fraud comes to light when others fail to confirm the results. I witnessed how Hendrik Schoen's machinations were uncovered ca. 2002 by Lydia Sohn and others. To be sure, a prior internal investigation at Bell Labs concluded that everything seemed legit, but that just goes to show that scientists outside of Bell Labs didn't take their word and looked into the matter themselves. Schoen has been effectively excommunicated from science and the last time I heard about him he was teaching high-school physics in Germany.
This tendency of scientists to look with skepticism at the work of their colleagues explains why consensus—when it is reached—is a strong indication that the work is solid. Caveat: I don't think the same applies to social sciences. Biology and climate research, however, are hard sciences.
Comment by olegt — June 26, 2008 @ 7:55 am
June 26th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Pez
There is no evidence that MET is directed, or that its products are designed, and this is what should be taught, and be in textbooks. However, that does not mean that MET necessarily is not directed.
Evolution does involve chance, just as every day life does. That is just a fact even for so-called microevolution; both variation and selection involve chance. Random in this context perhaps relates to random mutation, in which case it is specifically random with respect to the needs of the organism, and there is scientific evidence to support this claim in bacteria, dating back to the 40s. Although there is evidence of some mutations being more likely than others, and of organisms varying the rates of mutation, I am not aware of any evidence of an organism favouring one mutation over another when a change in the environment makes the former mutation beneficial.
I am asking him to support his assertion about "claims of 'undesigned' or 'random/chance' or otherwise", by linking to them. Is that so very difficult to understand?
Comment by The Pixie — June 26, 2008 @ 9:21 am
June 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Hi The Pixie,
I can't rate its difficulty.
Why do want him to do this, though, when you are fully aware that claims of undirected, undesigned, unplanned, without foresight, without guidance, random, etc. are presented as proper fare by scientists as well as textbooks.
So would it be unscientific to claim that evolution is undirected? Are you as concerned about the line between philosophy and science in this case?
Comment by Pez — June 26, 2008 @ 9:35 am
June 26th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Pez
Oh. Well never mind. As long as nullasalus understands, that is the important thing.
Because I am curious to see how unscientific or misleading it is.
Mainstream science tentatively holds that evolution is undirected. The claim is scientific because there is evidence to support it. However, that does not rule teleology out, any more than Newton's laws ruled out relativity. If one day a scientist comes up with good evidence for teleology, mainstrea science will evolve accordingly (and teleologically).
Comment by The Pixie — June 26, 2008 @ 9:54 am
June 26th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Todd:
I suppose it's never occurred to you that "Big Science" earned my disdain the good old-fashioned way (and quite likely before you were born). All human institutions are eventually and inevitably corrupted by the many corruptions human beings engender by their very nature. Religion and politics aren't the only powerful human institutions in the modern world.
My goodness, I've said it so often my typing is hoarse! I strongly suspect that life - and thus evolution - is intelligently designed by life. By virtue of what it is and how it manifests and how it strives to accomplish its 'prime directive'. IOW, something that looks a lot like EAM.
It wouldn't hurt you to pay a little bit of attention here. Your personal stereotypes and prejudices don't automatically apply to me just because someone told you their stereotypes and prejudi