Of Pandas and Creationists
by KrauzeMuch attention is focused on the ongoing "Kitzmiller v. DASD" trial in Dover, in which the plaintifs made use of a quote from a preliminary version of the book Of Pandas and People, which is offered as a "reference book" on intelligent design by the school district. Here is the quote, thanks to Wesley R. Elsberry at PT:
"Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."
The scoop is that in the published version, "creation" was replaced with "intelligent design", while leaving the rest of the quote intact. Now, since I don't support teaching intelligent design in school, I have nothing riding on the outcome of this trial. Also, since intelligent design is just an overall category, under which many different positions, including creationism, fits, (Ross, 2005), it doesn't come as a big surprise that some creationists will try presenting their own position as "what intelligent design is".
However, there's an aspect of this that has been overlooked so far. The quote has been seized on by many intelligent design critics, including The Panda's Thumb (here and here), Pharyngula, and Stranger Fruit. This means that we now have a clear, widely-accepted definition of creationism from the intelligent design critics.
So the next time someone tries to use a contrived rationalization to label, say, Michael Behe a creationist, it'll only be necessary to point to the definition of creationism and note that since Behe does not advocate the special creation of fish, birds, and mammals, the label won't stick.
Referecens:
Marcus R. Ross, "Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism," Journal of Geoscience Education 53:319-323 (2005) [PDF - Beware: Slow download]
October 1st, 2005 at 10:14 am
How explicit has Behe been, on the record, when it comes to matters such as the common ancestry of all metazoans, or the evolution of features such as those mentioned in the blog entry? For example, does he accept that birds with wings evolved from (flightless?) dinosaurs?
Just wondering.
Comment by Art — October 1, 2005 @ 10:14 am
October 1st, 2005 at 10:21 am
How explicit has Art been, on the record, when it comes to matters such as parenting and religion. For example, does he accept Dawkins' thesis that raising a child in religion is mental child abuse and worse than sexual molestation?
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 10:21 am
October 1st, 2005 at 11:27 am
Hi Art,
Yeah, and how explicit has Behe been on which part of Catholicism he belongs to? How do we know he's not part of the traditionalist fraction, and believes that the Jews are to blame for killing Jesus, and that the Holocaust is a story invented by the Jews?
Just wondering.
Comment by Krauze — October 1, 2005 @ 11:27 am
October 1st, 2005 at 11:44 am
?????
I'm just curious as to what Behe has actually said regarding the evolutionary origins of things like fins, sales, wings, and the like. Surely someone reading this can help me out.
……..
.
.
.
.
…….Well, I'll give in just a tiny bit to temptation and ask Krauze which of the two "opposites" mentioned in the blog entry - special creation or ID - are represented by the extreme Catholic faction in the analogy in the comment preceding this?
(And someone help me out - is "blog entry" more appropriate than "opening post" Proper blog protocol isn't a strong suit of mine, I'm afraid.)
Comment by Art — October 1, 2005 @ 11:44 am
October 1st, 2005 at 12:12 pm
?????
I'm just curious as to what Art has actually said regarding Dawkins, parenting, and religion. Surely Art can help me out.
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:25 pm
I have a solution for Art's problem "“ he simply needs to follow in the footsteps of his colleagues. First, borrowing from the NCSE, he should send e-mails to the faculty at Behe's school with the interesting observation that he has never seen Behe state, on the record, his acceptance of the common ancestry of all metazoans or the evolution of fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands. Then, further borrowing from the strategy of the NCSE, throw in some rumors in follow-up e-mails. At this point, the Smithsonian strategy will take over, and someone might make an issue out of Behe's Catholicism. This sets the stage for the ISU strategy, where another Decree can be handed out condemning Behe's suspicious silence. I suspect that Art would find this strategy deeply satisfying.
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 12:25 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Krauze is probably right, but as far as I can see it's a big "who cares" The fact is the anti-ID crowd will toss any perjorative label they can at anyone who has the audacity to question evolution. Recall the title to Robert Pennock's anthology: "Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics", as if "Intelligent Design" were little more than an adjective to modify the term "Creationism". To the anti-ID crowd, ID, Creationism, "religious right",…they're all one and the same, such being the levels of intellectual dishonesy that runs rampant throughout their ranks.
It's time to turn the tables. Put Darwinism front and center, and make them defend it. Force them to actual deal with the scientific problems Darwinism presents. No more of this:
Darwin doubter: "Dr. Dawkins, can you point to an instance of information increase that can be explained in evolutionary terms?"
Dawkins: "Only a creationist (or fudamentalist, or IDist, or "religious right fruticake" — such terms being interchangable) would ask such an appaling question. Now, as I was saying, blah blah yippity do dah!"
Or this:
Darwin Doubter: "Dr. Miller, can you provide a plausible evolutionary pathway the explains how a bacteria obtains a flagellum?"
Miller: "Only a creationist wouldn't know about the type III secretory system, which is an obvious precursor to the flagellum. And how dare you dishonor the Almighty by attributing all those bad designs to him, you fundamentalist boob!."
From the anti-ID crowd perspective the mantra is "why us an actual argument when a good ad hominem will do. Enough! It's time to call for the question. Show us the science. "Where did you put all those research studies, Dr. Miller, that explain the evolutionary development for any of the IC systems that Dr. Behe described is his book, nine years ago! I'll be darned if I can find "em anywhere."
"Sure Dr. Dawkins, we know that genes transmit information, but where are you hiding all the research studies that tell us, in evolutionary terms, where the information in the genetic code came from in the first place? Something more than mere hand-waving conjecture please. A lab demonstration would be nice."
"Tell us, oh mavens of evolution, how you know scientifically ( and not theologically, or philosophically or ecumenically or meta-physically or spirtiually) that the structure of the cosmos is such that any apparent design we observe, especially in biological systems, can be actual design even in principle?"
I couldn't care less what labels they want to use. Ad homs do not answer the tough questions. I've had it with the intellectual arraogance and dishonesty of the anti-ID crowd as represented in the Miller's, Dawkinses, and Panda's Pinkie crowd.
Comment by DonaldM — October 1, 2005 @ 12:44 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Hi Art,
I don't know of anyplace where Behe has explicitly mentioned "the evolutionary origins of things like fins, sales, wings, and the like" (although in DBB, he said he accepted common descent, and in a discussion with Miller, he said that he accepted the common ancestry of humans and apes). What conclusion do you think we should draw from this?
Comment by Krauze — October 1, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Oops, a major typo:
Make that "can not be actual design….
Comment by DonaldM — October 1, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Hi Krauze,
Sorry for the typo that you propagated (LOL - someone help me figure out a way to avoid being dragged to sales at malls by my family).
Um, maybe that the close of the blog entry could have been phrased in a way so as not to suggest that Behe has opined on the specifics that were mentioned?
Moving on - what about IC molecular machines? Would one be incorrect in suggesting that Behe in fact advocates for the "special creation" of these things?
Comment by Art — October 1, 2005 @ 1:06 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
Define "special creation."
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Okay, let's cut to the chase and assume 'special creation' means that something is brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity. Yes, Art would be incorrect in asserting that Behe in fact advocates for the "special creation" of IC molecular machines.
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 2:50 pm
So, Behe has stated explicitly, for the record, that IC molecular machines were not "brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity" Source, please.
Or maybe Behe has presented, for the record, a hypothetical pathway or mechanism for the origination of IC machines (a specific one, or the general class) that pretty clearly rules out their being "brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity". For the curiousity of readers of this blog, one or more references or links would be nice.
Comment by Art — October 1, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 3:18 pm
So, Behe has stated explicitly, for the record, that IC molecular machines were "brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity"? Source, please.
This obsession with precisely-worded statements "for the record" is rather odd. After all, you are hardly in a position to make such demands given that you have not stated, for the record, that you disagree with Dawkins' bigotry. I smell the stench of hypocrisy here.
Okay, to deal with your questions, I found my copy of Behe's book. But then it hit me. Before I deal with your questions, I don't recall you having ever stated, for the record, that have read Behe's book. So Art, would you care to go on the record about this first?
Comment by MikeGene — October 1, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
October 1st, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Hi Art,
"Um, maybe that the close of the blog entry could have been phrased in a way so as not to suggest that Behe has opined on the specifics that were mentioned?"
My post ended with this paragraph:
"So the next time someone tries to use a contrived rationalization to label, say, Michael Behe a creationist, it'll only be necessary to point to the definition of creationism and note that since Behe does not advocate the special creation of fish, birds, and mammals, the label won't stick."
Do you know of any place where Behe advocates the special creation of fish, birds, and mammals? Did Shanks and Joplin reference any when trying to label Behe a creationist?
Comment by Krauze — October 1, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:05 am
From Dr. Behe:
Art:
Or maybe Behe has presented, for the record, a hypothetical pathway or mechanism for the origination of IC machines (a specific one, or the general class) that pretty clearly rules out their being "brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity".
Is that a requirement? ID is about the detection and understanding of the design. In order to determine any mechanism, ie built-in responses to environmental cues or just a well written genetic algorithm, we first have to study the design as that- an intentional process. But the design implementation is lower on the list than the detection and understanding. Only by completing those two steps can we have any hope to figure out the implementation process.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 9:05 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:49 am
Krauze:
No and no. So why even mention this, or suggest that Behe has offered an opinion on these particulars? That's all I'm wondering.
JoeG, thanks for the mention regarding Behe and common descent. I'm not aware that Behe has ever offered any specifics beyond "common descent". I'm just curious as to how specific he has been. Not just in DBB, mind you.
JoeG said, when I asked if Behe had offered any mechanisms for the origins of IC molecular machines:
I was asking in the context of being able to rule out "their being "brought into existence fully-formed through the miraculous intervention of a supernatural entity"". Surely, if Behe has speculated on mechanism, and these speculations do not involve some variation of "poof" (sorry for the shorthand), then we can say that Behe does not (necessarily) subscribe to the "special creation" mechanism for the origins of IC molecular machines.
Comment by Art — October 2, 2005 @ 9:49 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:00 am
Art:
JoeG, thanks for the mention regarding Behe and common descent. I'm not aware that Behe has ever offered any specifics beyond "common descent".
What 'specifics' are there? It is obvious he doesn't accept that RM&NS is a mechanism that can account for it. What else do you want?
I am sure if the data pointed to a special creation then Dr. Behe would accept that. So why should he rule it out? Only the anti-objective science community would rule out a special creation in light of what we do know.
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 11:00 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 11:12 am
Art:
But Krauze never argued that Behe "offered an opinion." He simply notes a fact "“ Behe does not advocate the special creation of fish, birds, and mammals. Therefore, the label doesn't stick.
Comment by MikeGene — October 2, 2005 @ 11:12 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
There was that one issue in which Dr. Behe after giving a lecture was confronted by a critic. Dr. Behe responded to a loaded/ leading question pertaining to a supernatural origin of structures and "poofing" into existence. I believe Dr. Behe responed with an affirmative.
However, as I stated earlier, he accepts what the data presents.
And if the data leads to that inference, a metaphysical origins to structures, so what? Why live in denial? Is it science to concoct a story that doesn't jibe with reality?
Comment by Joe G — October 2, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 9:08 pm
If an IC system was brought into existence fully formed by God, why must we think of it as supernatural or miraculous? What do such terms mean? The guys in the genetics lab, modifying our foods, is that miraculous or supernatural? Is Dolly the sheep miraculous or supernatural? It is the strange assumption that nature is not part of God which then gives rise to the idea of the supernatural. Either there is no God, in which case no supernatural, or there is a God, in which case the idea is nonsensical.
Comment by onething — October 2, 2005 @ 9:08 pm