Preaching Outside the Choir
by Steve PetermannAt one point in the Town Hall Center for Civic Life debate between Stephen Meyer and Peter Ward, Dr. Ward asked the audience if anyone had changed their mind. The audience appeared to be silent. Now one shouldn't make to much of the silence but judging from the pronounced applause in response to certain arguments there were "choirs" from both sides present. However, the silence does raise an interesting question regarding the demographics and rhetorical aspects of the ID/Darwinism debate. Clearly there are enthusiastic choirs out there on both sides of the issue. Now it is unlikely that many people will switch choirs in response to the debate, but that still leaves an awful lot of people out there who are following what's going but haven't yet joined a choir. Two questions then arise. Are the choirs on both sides enough to resolve the cultural issues involved in the debate? Judging from the efforts on both sides to recruit outsiders into their camp, the answer is no. The other question is who are these groups outside the choir and how can they be persuaded?
It seems to me that the major group that has already joined the choir of ID is represented by the conservative religious adherents and clergy. On the Darwinian side there are most of the academics and scientists and many of the liberal religious leaders. So who are the outside groups who could provide the most power for a particular position? I think they are the youth and the moderate and liberal religious adherents in the pews. Both of those blocks represent an enormous number of people who have not yet really joined a choir (become actively engaged), but who could also make a significant impact on public opinion for either side.
The youth represent a very powerful group because they are the future of science and scientific orientation. If they are open to ID, it would represent a major shift in the characterization and practice of science. They are the greatest threat to the Darwinian choir. Most have nothing invested in the establishment. They haven't joined a choir yet so they'll be open to whatever is most compelling to them.
With regard to the youth there is an interesting dynamic going on. The Discovery Institute's official recommendation for public high school biology classes is only that both the evidence for and against Darwinian theory be introduced. Even with this official position, ID critics resoundingly claim that this is just an attempt to smuggle religion into these classrooms. Ironically that is exactly what prominent ID critic, Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the NCSE is recommending. She wants science teachers to know how to use religious concepts and theology in class to support the version of evolution she is promoting .
The next step in constructing student understanding of concepts is to guide them towards a more accurate view. One goal of this exercise is to help them see the diversity of religious attitudes towards evolution.
After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked, "Which statement was made by the Pope?" or "which statement was made by an Episcopal Bishop?" and given an "a, b, c" multiple choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn't have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith.
She also wants evolution taught in elementary schools. What better way to recruit members to the choir before they develop their powers of discernment. Is this an attempt to merge the religious and evolutionary choirs? No doubt.
But teachers themselves need to take the initiative, because ultimately, the buck stops in the classroom, with the teacher. Many teachers teach science without having had training in the subject, or with only inadequate training. Especially at the elementary level, many teachers have "science phobia". These teachers are especially reluctant to teach evolution, for obvious reasons. They need better knowledge of the content of science, but they also need encouragement to teach a controversial issue. There are many knowledgeable teachers who are teaching evolution, and teaching it well. You have a responsibility to mentor those who are not, and I encourage you to do so.
Probably the largest group of people who have not yet really become active are the moderate and liberal religious adherents (those the pews). At least from my experience in moderate and liberal religion, there are an enormous number of people in this group who either haven't really thought about the implications of evolutionary thinking for their faith or have indiscriminately followed religious leaders in support of a Darwinian worldview. Prominent Darwinists like Ken Miller, some Episcopalian leaders, and Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne are actively courting those theists but, as far as I can tell, not much has been going on from those liberal and moderate religious leaders who are sympathetic to ID. (Perhaps Cardinal Schönborn is an exception). Is this because there are no ID friendly moderate and liberal religious leaders or is there some other reason? Are they being pounced on by their peers, as are ID friendly scientists? I think this is the case. One has to wonder, however, if this enormous group will eventually wake up and join the fray.
The choirs from both camps will, no doubt, continue to go at each other, but if that is the vocal minority, it may be the swing vote of those outside the choir both in science, academia, and the general public who eventually tip the scales one way or another.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Is Scott suggesting that there be multiple choice tests about theological statements in science class?
At least she admits that she is excluding some views. How would this be different than having a class on world religions but only stressing the ones that accept the divinity of Christ? I don't see how either could be legal.
Comment by macht — May 14, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
May 14th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
Previously posted:
At least she admits that she is excluding some views. How would this be different than having a class on world religions but only stressing the ones that accept the divinity of Christ? I don't see how either could be legal.
———————————————————————————
I think it depends on the rationale (and here there is some 'mind-reading' that has to be done etc.); some rationales for 'stressing' Christian/quasi-Christian religions even in a class on world religions:
1) sheer size. No matter how you define a religion OR 'Christianity', broadly speaking, Christianity is the 800 pound gorilla of religions:
according to one source, the number of Christian adherents is
2,039 million ( or 32% of the world population). The next largest group, Islam, has 1,226 million adherents (a bit under 20% of the world population).
2) cultural influence: religion is both a part of culture and enmeshed in other aspects of culture. For someone living in North America, South America, Europe, Australia etc. the cultural influence of Christianity dwarfs that of all other religious elements combined, and that has been the case for at least the past 500 years.
3) history (which overlaps with cultural influence but isn't identical to it): it is really impossible to understand the Rennaissance, the Crusades, even the motives and intentions of the Puritans who came to the New World without understanding the religious concepts which were regnant at that time.
————————————————————————
Of course, this assumes that 'stressing' religions which accept the divinity of Christ is just that: stressing and NOT excluding categorically all other religions……
————————————————————————-
You have much the same trouble if you try to teach a class in "world languages": much of the emphasis tends to be on the most widespread and/or influential ones……
Comment by len — May 14, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
May 14th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Supposed Christian "theologians" who stress "the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution" are not worthy of the term "theologian".
Comment by Douglas — May 14, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
May 14th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
In regard to this tipping the scales, what does it refer to? Is this the Kuhnian critical mass argument for a scientific revolution, aka paradigm shift? Is joining choirs how science is proposed these days in America?
At what point would Ken Miller not qualify as a Darwinist (it sounds like a bitter, name-calling label)? He is an evolutionary theorist or evolutionary creationist; this distinguishes him from Darwin's evolutionary model. George Coyne likewise does not believe human beings are accidents; they/we are created in the image of God. Does that make him non-Darwinian?
I'm curious if Meyer convinced TT-Steve P. that ID has scientific legitimacy.
Pattern recognition iand specificationism is slightly different than a scientific revolution, isn't it?
Comment by g arago — May 14, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
May 14th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
g arago,
Surely, as sociologist, you would agree that science and education do not occur in a vacuum. I don't know if ID is signaling a shift in the way science is approached. I suspect it is, but if so it will take a long time. However, public sentiment is and important factor in how science and education are done. After all, who pays a lot of the bills for scientists and universities? Who decides where their kids will go to school. If public opinion is of so little consequence why all the efforts to persuade it?
Are you saying these folks are not staunch proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution?
This is tired old stuff. If you asked me if ID is an empirically based attempt to search for the truth about origins, I'd say yes.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 14, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 2:06 am
Great idea! And during Sex Ed, they could have a pop quiz on some of the Pope's statements on the use of contraceptives. Surely, "making the students aware of the diversity of opinion" on that subject is important too, right?
Comment by Krauze — May 15, 2006 @ 2:06 am
May 15th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Hello Steve,
More evidence that IDism is really a theological, rather than scientific controversy. No one would suggest that the way to resolve a controversy in science is by trying to convince a particular group of religious adherents that a scientific theory is incompatible with their theological beliefs. If IDism was really about science, it would replace evolutionary theory by proving itself more useful to scientists in research. Steve, you already have tens of millions of americans sympathetic to concept of ID, but if it doesn't give them the tools to develop research grants that will produce real results the way evolutionary theory does, it really doesn't matter how successful your pr campaign with liberal christians is; IDism still isn't going to make any headway as science.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2006 @ 9:52 am
May 15th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Hi Aagcobb,
If so why is Scott promoting a strategy that theology be used in science classes to convince students that there is no incompatibility? Why does Ken Miller fly all over the country for speaking engagements to do the same? Apparently they think that public sentiment does have some impact on how science and education develop. We already have metaphysics (Darwinian non-teleology) in science biology classes. This brings science education into the realm of culture. The general public has a vested interest in how culture develops. If the Darwinian metaphysic is biasing education culturally then the public has every right to put its full force behind making corrections.
I guess this is a chicken and egg issue. Can anyone get a grant to develop ID theory and tools if it is thwarted at ever turn by a non-scientific ideology? If ID is so vacuous scientifically why not just let it run its course? If it isn't scientifically productive it will just fade away.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 15, 2006 @ 10:18 am
May 15th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hi Steve,
You really should call it scientific non-teleology, because in that regard evolutionary theory is exactly like all other scientific theories. No scientific theory is based on the actions of nonhuman intelligent agents, outside of the activities of a few other large brained terrestrial organisms and theories based on the possible existence of technologically advanced biological ETs, like SETI. In any other context, the ID cause would look silly, like advocating for teaching children "intelligent meteorology", the theory that God steers hurricanes around, as an alternative to regular meteorology.
There are a lot of powerful people with a lot of money whose ideology is compatible with ID. When people believe false things, that creates business opportunities for people who know the truth to exploit. There is a lot of money to be made in industires based on biology. IDists can do an end run around the EAC in control of academia by presenting research proposals directly to conservatives with money to fund it; if ID is a superior way of undersatnding biology to evolution, they should be able to achieve lucrative scientific breakthroughs.
IDism and other forms of creationism won't fade away regardless of their scientific vacuity so long as there is a cultural base for them to exploit.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2006 @ 11:10 am
May 15th, 2006 at 11:20 am
The Discovery Institute's official recommendation for public high school biology classes is only that both the evidence for and against Darwinian theory be introduced. Even with this official position, ID critics resoundingly claim that this is just an attempt to smuggle religion into these classrooms.
Well, there are a couple of different ways to present evidence "for and against" something.
You can balance it according to the weight of the evidence. So the presentation would be "Here's a huge stack of evidence for evolution. Some people believe that there are also additional factors involved. Right now they're still in the data-collection phase so they don't have solid evidence, but this could change in the future."
Or you can balance it according to the number of statements. "Here are ten arguments for evolution, and ten arguments for intelligent design. You can decide for yourself if any of the arguments are invalid or based on false assumptions."
You can even impose a bias in the presentation. "People who believe in Evolution say X. People who believe in Intelligent Design say that they're obviously wrong because of Y." (Always giving the Intelligent Design side the "last word", even when there's a good rebuttal to Y.)
Obviously the first presentation is the appropriate one, the second is potentially confusing for the students, and the last one is downright dishonest.
The problem is that the Discovery Institute has picked up a bad reputation over the years, and some people are concerned that they're going for the dishonest option. So the DI just needs to do a better job of explaining their proposed lesson plan.
(My feeling is that it's still too early to get Intelligent Design into the public schools. It's really still in the "vague handwaving" stage. There's nothing wrong with that…all scientific theories started out as vague handwaving…but I do think we need a proper theory before we start teaching it in science classes.)
Comment by chaosengineer — May 15, 2006 @ 11:20 am
May 15th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Aagcobb,
So that just brings us back to the definitional exclusion of certain forms of exploration. That's fine with me because if that it is the tactic, it won't work. Young people, in particular, see right through that as some form of ideological protectionism.
And they may. Just say for the sake of argument there is a teleological basis for biotic evolution. Why in the world wouldn't we want to understand it? After all where in the world would one look for a more wonderous process? Also I don't think those kinds of explorations would just apply to biology. Anywhere there are human systems that are emergent (i.e. economics, law, psychology, ecology, etc.) wouldn't this represent an enormous opportunity to learn how to better shape the processes involved towards some goal, like the reduction of poverty, protecting the environment, being more just, having better mental health, etc. All of those systems involve the complex interaction of intelligence and the state of affairs.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 15, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Hi chaosengineer,
I don't think there is any doubt that DI has an agenda beyond the science. Philip Johnson and others have made it perfectly clear that the goal is to counter what they perceive as the rampant promotion of a materialist metaphysic through science. At least they are upfront about it. I think to acheive this goal there can be two approaches. Get this metaphysical promotion out of science as science or balance it with another metaphysic. The DI official position of just offering students evidence both for and against Darwinian theory seems to be the former approach. I also think this is perfectly legitimate. If they start advocating teaching ID in schools that would represent the later approach. So far they have not taken that step.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 15, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Hi Steve,
No, its not ideological protectionism, its the limits of scientific inquiry. For 10,000 years, teleological arguments reigned supreme; Gods, demons and other spirits were thought to directly control everything. Little changed; most people lived and died in the same squalor as their ancestors had for thousands of years. Then, a few centuries ago, a few people started studying the natural world based on what they could observe; as a result, we have learned more about the universe in just a few centuries than in all prior recorded history, and in the Western World especially most people today live long healthy lives enjoying comforts provided by our science and technology unimaginable to even the wealthiest and most powerful rulers of the past. None of the breakthroughs that have made our current lives possible involve postulating the existence of an undetectable inhuman intelligent agent, nor is there any reason to think that returning to a teleological paradigm will work any better than it did for the thousands of years during which it was the predominant understanding of the world.
Its been tried. The Marxists, and many other people, were sure that an intelligently planned economy would undoubtedly prove superior to the waste and chaos of free market capitalism. We know how that turned out.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Aagcobb,
A lot has changed since Aristotle. Maybe exporing from a teleological perspective won't be fruitful, but the old "it worked in the past" mentality doesn't particularly inspire new ideas. Also I see no reason that the non-teleogical approach can't continue on its merry way. Isn't the life blood of science the plurality of theories?
Gee, I thought we had a lot of people trying to intelligently develop the economy within our "free" market. What about the Fed, Securities and Exchange Commission, Our three brances of government, Trade, Advertising, Taxation, Government incentives, etc., not even to mention the psychological aspects of consumers.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 15, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Hi Steve,
You may not be inspired, perhaps, but based on the scientific production we are enjoying it seems that there are thousands of working scientists who don't need the inspiration of appealing to an invisible, inhuman intelligent agent, though now that I think about it, I'm certainly inspired by "it didn't work for 10,000 years, let's try it again!"
Comment by Aagcobb — May 15, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
A question:
With regard to the problem of determining the origin of a particular sequence of DNA within
an organism, as viewed from the paradigm of Evolutionary Science, there seems to be a difficulty in that
this branch of science, as it is currently practiced, could *never* identify design
as the cause of the DNA sequence in question, even in a case where it is *certain* that design was the cause.
Consider the following thought experiment:
If we had a time machine, and we could transport every evolutionist that existed prior to the discovery of the technology that allows us to create these Genetically Modified Organisms [GMO's] to today's world, and locked them in a room with all the newly designed GMO's as data, and neglected to tell them they were designed, we could sit back and watch them generate 10's of 1000's of papers explaining how everyone of them evolved, and they'd be fighting with each other, because each could see the colossal mistakes of the other, but not his own mistakes. But, to the rest of the world they'd present a single face, and insist they're only debating the "details", but certainly there's no controversy whatsoever that the organisms they were studying had evolved. And the "evidence" would be the 10's of 1000's of papers that they had produced. I'm sure they could stack them in a pile as evidence in front of a judge in a court of law and have the "challengers" laughed out of the courtroom. Only problem is, in this instance, we know they're wrong.
Does this sound familiar to anyone? Evolution, in this instance, is lacking at best.
Now, how can it be "inappropriate" in any way to teach this in a science class?
Comment by es58 — May 15, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Hi Es58 - please consider that that particular word, that linguistic concept, that special signifier 'design' is being stretched by a movement of scholars/scientists in America to take on a whole new meaning. If you want to attach such gigantic significance to a single word, perhaps also note that it is the peculiarity of the 'evolution in America' context that is driving the promotion of ID and also antagonism towards it. In no other place in the world could such a controversy/paradox/contradiction happen.
G.A.
Steve,
It is actually a pleasure to read your posts sometimes, especially when you stick to the importance of teleological logic/reasoning/methodology, instead of just harping on the ID-politics-movement in America.
As a sociologist, I appreciate your respect, and so let me then add my two cents in response. If there is a 'shift in the way science is approached' then probably it will happen quickly and without great delay. From a sociological perspective, we are undergoing massive social changes during this period of rapid technological development and global restructuring.
There is no reason to think that what the IDM has presented is not already EXHAUSTED. Just please say anything *new* in the past three-five years that Dembski, Behe, Meyer, Wells, Nelson et al. have produced and my case will be weakened. Sadly, I see only the same things repeated again and again, for example, Dr. M. Behe's mousetrap, Easter Island and Mt. Rushmore analogies. Really, an honest observer must admit; this repetition is getting BOrING!!
On the other hand, I do empathize with your case for teological relevance. It would perhaps help to bring in Aristotle's causes again, to the effect that final causes are virtually eliminated from modern science. Postmodernity enables the case for formal causality to re-emerge as a legitimate source of (scientific or non-scientific) knowledge. Efficient cause is really what the IDM is arguing against, in the sense of avoiding it altogether (along with material causality). But the facts are surely on the side of naturalists/scientists as to why they chose to focus on efficient causes instead of final causes in the first place.
Such arguments do nothing to support the case of legitimate 'scientific progress.' Public sentiment does not 'produce' scientific results; it is just politicking and socializing. What you are really waiting for, it seems, is a scientific formulation that recognizes the importance of a telological approach and which also frames it within a context that naturalists/scientists can accept. Unfortunately, the IDM hasn't yet come up with such a solution to the neo-evolutionary paradigm, and in fact ID adopts its own nuanced theories of evolution within its 'design revolution' and 'well, its just an inference' paradigmatic attempts.
Probably the questions 'which evolution' or 'whose evolution' are both relevant, and would enable you to distinguish the teleological from the anti-teleological forms of evolutionary theories more clearly.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 15, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
May 15th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Added: yes, I'm saying that neither Ken Miller nor George Coyne are "staunch proponents of the Darwinian theory of evolution." They accept certain aspects of Darwin's contribution to science, yes, but not all of it. They are both theists, after all, while Darwin was an agnostic; he didn't know what to believe.
'Meaningless' and 'purposeless' are not suitable vocabulary for Miller and Coyne. Guided or un-guided, intervening or non-interventionist, random or non-random - these are concepts best discussed with them personally.
Please don't paint them with such a broad stroke as (ugghh, not an) ugly Darwinist.
Comment by g arago — May 15, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 8:27 am
What parts of it are you claiming that they are rejecting?
What has their respective religions got to do with it? Should we reject mathematics developed by Muslims or pagan Ancient Greeks? In any case, Darwin did not develop the Theory of Evolution because he was an agnostic (he was in fact a theist, and a fan of Paley in early life), but became agnostic because of the Theory.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 8:27 am
May 16th, 2006 at 9:06 am
Darwin did not develop the Theory of Evolution because he was an agnostic (he was in fact a theist, and a fan of Paley in early life), but became agnostic because of the Theory.
That's an oversimplification. Darwin became agnostic for a variety of reasons, just as most other people alter their religious beliefs for a variety of reasons. The premature and painful death of his daughter Annie probably contributed to his loss of faith at least as much, if not more, than did his scientific theories.
Comment by Nick — May 16, 2006 @ 9:06 am
May 16th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Nick, you are probably correct. I was not attempting to claim that his agnosticism was fully explained by evolution, but merely that the causal relationship ran the opposite way from what g arago seemed to be implying.
Comment by Hrafn — May 16, 2006 @ 9:10 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:33 am
g arago: you wrote:
'design' is being stretched by a movement of scholars/scientists in America to take on a whole new meaning.
could you give a specific example of what you mean. what should the term me, and how is it stretched.
Thanks.
Comment by es58 — May 16, 2006 @ 11:33 am
May 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am
g arago wrote:
"It would perhaps help to bring in Aristotle's causes again, to the effect that final causes are virtually eliminated from modern science. Postmodernity enables the case for formal causality to re-emerge as a legitimate source of (scientific or non-scientific) knowledge."
Interesting that you should propose this, for that is precisely what I will be doing during the very first meeting of my "purpose in nature" seminar at Cornell this summer. It is a sad fact that most undergraduates (and an alarming number of philosophers and scientists) do not know anything about Aristotle's doctrine of causes, nor how they relate to the work they are doing. Aristotle identified four causes for every phenomenon:
Material cause: What the objects in question are composed of (e.g. a house is composed of boards, bricks, mortar, etc.
Formal cause: What formal category object is an exemplar of (e.g. any particular house is a "house" or dwelling place for people)
Efficient cause: What immediate processes bring about the existence of the object (e.g. the carpenters, etc. are the efficient cause of the house)
Final cause: The purpose of the object (e.g. carpenters et al build houses "in order to" provide dwelling places for people)
In modern science, both formal and final causes are considered to be irrelevant, and are therefore not generally included in scientific explanations of natural objects and processes. However, it is not strictly true that formal causes have been eliminated from science. Much of physics, for example, has taken on some of the characteristics of "formal cause" insofar as physical processes are describable and predictable using formal mathematics.
The same could be said for evolutionary theory insofar as the "modern evolutionary synthesis" initiated R. A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright sought to lay a formal mathematical foundation for biological evolution.
The problem for "intelligent design theory" therefore is to show (if possible) that final causes are also necessary for evolutionary explanations of natural objects and processes. Final causes (or "purposes") are not entirely missing from evolutionary biology, as shown by the work of Colin Pittendrigh, Francisco Ayala, and Ernst Mayr, all of whom debated the appropriateness of teleological language during the late 20th century. However, no evolutionary biologist has resorted to teleological explanations for the existence of natural selection, speciation, evolutionary development, or other central processes in evolution, at least not to date.
What W. Dembski and M. Behe have attempted to do (in my opinion unsuccessfully) is to re-integrate teleology into evolutionary processes. The more recent discussion of "front-loading" in design is simply a reinvention of Aristotelian formal cause, indistinguishable from classical deism. Neither of these approaches to "design or purpose in nature" has yet been successful as scientific enterprises because they have not been shown to be indispensible to scientific explanations. Until they are, they will not be integrated into mainstream science. While I personally do not believe they can be, I am willing to be shown otherwise by people who use direct empirical evidence and strong inference to show how teleological explanations are necessary for scientific explanations. So far this effort has failed, in my opinion.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 16, 2006 @ 11:51 am
May 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
g arago,
You must have been a sophist in another lifetime. It really grates on me when you cite me and then answer in a way that inaccurately frames my statement. This is a common sophist tactic. I never attempted to claim anthing you suggest in your assertion.
If you are referring something I said you should be more precise. Otherwise I'll just take this as spin.
This is from Miller's book:
Of course Miller and Coyne claim to be Christians. They won't claim that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning. However, as I explained in my article I linked to, I find the theology very strange where Miller claims that "Evolution is random and undirected" and the turns around and believes in miraculous interventions like the virgin birth? I don't know about the rest of Coyne's theology.
Comment by Steve Petermann — May 16, 2006 @ 1:32 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Sorry for this clumped post:
The meaningless and purposeless parts. The parts that are purely 'naturalistic' or even 'anti-theistic.'
Please say which way you think I am suggesting the 'causal relationship runs' between Darwin and agnosticism, so that we at TT's will all understand what you're saying. Agnostic and 'didn't know what to believe' are meant as basically definitional. Can you see no distinction between Miller and Coyne, both Catholic thinkers, and C. Darwin, a disenchanted Anglican (Church of England)? Or are these non-scientific labels just entirely irrelevant to your anti-IDism, pro-Darwinianism-ism?
~
It is not a surprise that Steve P. suggests:
This is because he simply doesn't register the existence of many conservative religious leaders (e.g. Murphy, Davis, Lamoureux) who side with Darwin's contribution to biology, botany, geology and natural science. What they don't 'side with' is his perspective on the meaning and purpose of human existence. Human beings are not simply a by-product of a meaningless universe; this is what Pope Benedict XVI said in his first address from the Vatican last year.
On the one hand we have 'random and undirected' and on the other we have 'meaningless and purposeless.' One language is more suitable for what is commonly considered 'science' than the other. But unless a person wants to flaunt their particular own hierarchy of knowledge (be our guest - bog), they'll be hard pressed to convince people that spiritual understanding is unimportant or inconsequential now at the beginning of the 21st century.
~
Just curious, are you born in 58? Is (part of) that the meaning of your tag?
Well, anyway, yes, I can give a specific example. But didn't you notice already yourself that the word deeeesssssiiiigggggnnnn is being stretched by the IDM and even by those at TT's? There are other concepts peculiar to the IDM-in-America that are being promoted and propagated as well.
I would suggest you refer to D. Lamoureux at the University of Alberta. He comments to the effect that the IDM would have nowhere near the influence it has had if it didn't rally around the specific terms 'intelligent+design.' This is the linguistic dimension, the argument about what the words themselves mean. As you can see even from the last few posts in this thread, the meanings people attach to words is quite important.
Graphic design, set design, industrial design, costume design, interior design, etc. - these are all far removed from the 'biology-first' approach of the IDM on the topic of 'origins of life' presearch. Ever wonder why no-one at TT's responds to the 'human-made vs. non-human made' question? Steve hasn't addressed a single significant point in my posts since the day this blog began! It is not I but he who is intent on forming a new religion, probably based on inferences instead of on history and the meaning of the Messianic message.
~
Allen: if you like, I will send you a copy of a paper that I've written on the four causes (and effects) in connection with i+D. Give the nod and I'll likely find your e-mail on your web page. Wishing you success, balance and patience in your summer course endeavour.
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 16, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
g arago
Thanks for your response.
you wrote:
As you can see even from the last few posts in this thread, the meanings people attach to words is quite important.
I'm confused: w/ DNA, a "designer" decides, for example, to change nucleotide X so that virus Y will no longer bind at site Z
but potentially, with arbitrary complexity. he could conceivably change nucleotide x so that the 3 element codon changes from y to z, so when the messenger RNA gets to the ribosome, it selects amino acid A, changing protein B to B1, causing it to fold differently, giving it a new shape so it will now bind w/ protein C, etc. And he programs all this into his computer before hand, "runs it" debugs, modifies it when it doesn't come out right, like any programmer. If that doesn't qualify as "design", then give it any name you like. It still requires an intelligence to plan it all, and modify it, and the rest of all the DNA works like that already, all the time, in spades.
so help me out. Why is the term "design" not applicable? I'm missing something
Comment by es58 — May 16, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
g arago wrote:
"Allen: if you like, I will send you a copy of a paper that I've written on the four causes (and effects) in connection with i+D. Give the nod and I'll likely find your e-mail on your web page. Wishing you success, balance and patience in your summer course endeavour."
Please do (pdf or MicroSoft Word .doc preferred), and I'll send you a copy of my most recent paper ("The capacity for religious experience is an evolutionary adaptation to warfare," Evolution & Cognition, 10:1, pp 43-60) via reply email. And thanks!
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — May 16, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
May 16th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Es58 - But you didn't answer my question. Don't you notice deeeessssiiiiggggnnnn being stretched by IDists and some at TT's?
You're already finding your own vocabulary that doesn't rely on design. Then again, you've already somehow assumed a 'designer' (shall I guess with an unembodied intelligence?)!
Yes, you're missing the fact that the IDM (not TT's) version of ID claims it is making a 'scientific revolution' that will alter the future of science, all based around the word 'design' - ta daa!
This is called investing all one's hope in a conceptual bargain. The concept of design is meant to answer any and all questions about origins, processes and changes, especially in biology, where quite frankly it doesn't seem to fit.
Your example, Ex58, is anthropocentric, invoking language usually reserved for human agents (a concept not unique to ID discourse). You also connect this with computer programming, to make the situation more complicated. But you're not really saying, are you, that biological organisms are really just mechanical-electronic programs that some-One or some-Thing has 'created' at each and every step of origin(s), process(es) and change(s)?
Come to think of it, you didn't answer my second question:
The point is that the word 'design' is not useless, it works in some places; da, yes it does. While in other cases, and you can ask this to Rock, who himself designs, or used to design for a living, the word deeeeessssssiiiiiggggnnnn is being stretched by the IDM beyond all recognizable proportion or propriety.
Yes, I 'designed' this post. Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnn!
Arago
Comment by g arago — May 16, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
g arago
But you're not really saying, are you, that biological organisms are really just mechanical-electronic programs that some-One or some-Thing has 'created' at each and every step of origin(s), process(es) and change(s)?
No. But where it appears more likely to be the case than the alternative scientific explanations, I'd say it's the more valid explanation. And there may be a very large class of such examples.
What "reasonable" alternative do you propose.
…"already assumed a designer"….
(and, I'm not assuming anything that I'm aware of, hypothesisizing yes.; the example I gave IS the process a human designer uses or could potentially use to "blumph" - [ there, didn't use the word 'design', but still not sure I get your point] a new pattern in a stretch of DNA. The method used by a previous, or the original purported designer cannot possibly be known based on the available evidence, any more than that designer's (blumpher's?) nature (embodied or not, etc, of which I really don't see the relevance of bringing that up here)
Comment by es58 — May 17, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
May 17th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
O.k. Es58, thank you also. You make some fine observations. But if you won't respond to my questions then we're not really having a balanced dialogue. I asked twice, and nicely both times. My side stops until yours answers. Here they are again:
Arago
p.s. 'blumph' - nice…and very Dr. Seussian.
Comment by g arago — May 17, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
May 18th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
g arago
Yes, you asked very nicely, no question about it, so I'll try:
"Don't you notice deeeessssiiiiggggnnnn being stretched by IDists and even some at TT's?"
I think of design as finding evidence that an "effect" was the result of the intent of an intellect, not to mention the fact that the ability was also demonstrated that the effect was constructed, however that was accomplished. I suppose all the definitions of design you have mentioned fall in that category to a greater or lesser extent, but that electro-mechanical computers seem like one of the more impressive examples, off hand.
"Ever wonder why no-one at TT's responds to the 'human-made vs. non-human made' question?"
I haven't spent that much time reading the posts so I never wondered it. I'll take your word for it that it's true and just say: "allright, I'll bite, why don't they respond to that question"
Thanks again for your patience.
Comment by es58 — May 18, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
May 22nd, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Thanks Es58, it seems you and I might have more to agree about after all. I find it interesting that you speak above of 'effects' as if it is (they are) the intent of intellect. Of course, most people speak (classically) about effects together with causes. Nevertheless, since human beings are the efficient cause(r)s of electro-mechanical computers (EMC), I suppose we could certainly accept that EMC's are a result of the intent of human intellect (and of something else).
The (a) problem with IDM-ID theory and its TT's-ID theories is that they are caught in what seems to be a process of social-political posturing that has held back their contribution(s) to science. Do you not agree? I have been saying for at least two years that if ID were to be 'reduced' to pattern recognition and specificationalism, that is, if it dropped the chants to 'scientific revolution' ala W. Dembski, it may be able to take more effective-legitimate strides into the scientific arena.
As it is, just as Steve's OP suggests, IDM-ID seems rather intent to preach to the networked choir-in-America that is already (partly) set up through various communication channels, and thus to 'rally-the-troops' for a philosophical (or philosophy of science) attack on Darwinism-as-science. Any non-IDM-ID advocates they entice in the process is a bonus, which serves to fuel 'the controversy' (as in 'THE home of THE free' - such absolutist language!). Telic Thoughts is on the fringe of the IDM (by implication of promoting IDT's), though it basically tends towards the Behe anti-Darwinism, and does not subscribe to "˜revolutionism' of the Dembski-Johnson blatant theological (or theistic science, following A. Plantinga) message.
Evolution, perhaps the most interdisciplinary concept in the contemporary academy is, however, a whole nuther story than simple "˜Darwinism.' Instead, Steve chooses Darwinism (not even neo-Darwinism or the MS) and thus fundamentally limits his critique. The camp-legacy of 'creationism vs. evolutionism' or 'creation science' vs. 'evolution science' still are apparently deeply entrenched in American networks, as Steve's example indicates.
Social Darwinism has been almost entirely rejected by social scientists. However, social evolutionism still thrives today. Did anyone HEAR that? So why doesn't Steve attack evolutionism instead of Darwinism? It is likely for the same reason that no one has yet come up with a coherent answer to the question of what distinguishes human-made things from non-human-made things.
The question of scientific legitimacy seems (on this topic) to be reserved for ego battles amongst natural scientists; biologists, chemists, geologists, botanists, ecologists, zoologists, taxonomists, and other physiologists who are sparring for attention, trying to improve upon Darwin's theoretical advancements. Mathematicians are apparently above the fray. And information theorists (not only programmers), people in technology and cognitive studies and philosophers of mind are now somehow becoming relevant in the process of hypothesis-making in the 21st century. The time will then likely someday come again when humanitarian thinkers may once again be respected for their contribution to scholarly work, beyond the shadows of either Darwinian, Newtonian, Einsteinian, Heisenbergian or Behe-ian frameworks.
Thanks for your patience also.
Gregory
Comment by g arago — May 22, 2006 @ 5:41 pm