Responses to the blog poll
by KrauzeMany blogs have reacted to my post, "Activism and the problem with blog polls". In this post, I described how I had emailed a poll to ID critics, asking them about intelligent design. The poll consisted of the question, "On which points are intelligent design and creationism identical?", followed by various options, of which the last was: "G. None of the above options accurately describe the relationship between creationism and intelligent design."
But this attempt was quickly dashed, as a few critics used their blogs to tell others what to reply. Within 27 minutes of having received his email, Wesley Elsberry of The Austringer had posted the contents of my letter, advising others to reply by choosing "G". Later, he said, "Hopefully, the issues are now clear to other webmasters and bloggers." John Lynch of Stranger Fruit was hot on the heels of Elsberry, assuring his readers that "The answer is, of course, 'G' and 'G' alone." Tara Smith of Aetiology linked to Eslberry's and Lynch's post, advising people to "check out their comments before sending your answer back." And Paul Myers of the widely read Pharyngula quickly linked to all of these posts, making sure to get the news out to anyone who might have received a poll.
In my post, I put a question to Elsberry that might as well be asked to all of those bloggers: "If the poll was indeed "wretchedly incomplete", as Elsberry claims, why did he see it necessary to notify his fellow bloggers immediately after receiving the poll? Was he worried that some might feel that one or more of my options adequately described their perception of intelligent design?" So far, his only response has been to post a couple of comments on his blog, neither of which answer this question. Fortunately, "Analyysi" is there, trying to get an answer out of Elsberry.
Joshua Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas tries to defend the practice:
Apparently this was a closed book test, but no one was told about that. And it was people's right not to reply, but not to choose option G. Also, respondents were assured anonymity, but there he is, identifying respondents.
But Rosenau is wrong: It wasn't a test, it was a poll. And when polling people, you usually don't let them coordinate their responses. Imagine that a surveying company had sent out a poll, asking Americans what they believed were the rationale for the war against Iraq. Furthermore imagine that a number of republican bloggers had immediately used their websites to tell people that the correct answer was "To bring democracy to Iraq", and that the war had nothing to do with claims about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Had that been the case, I doubt that Rosenau would have been complaining about it being a "closed book test".
As for the claim that I've dishonestly been identifying respondents, Kevin Parker gets it exactly right: The promise of anonymity was so that people could respond without fearing that their response was made public without their consent. I have no control over people using their own blogs to tell others what they replied.
One of those people is the author of the blog Afarensis, who writes:
If Krauze is saying I am pro-science and an ID outsider, doesn't that imply that Krauze thinks ID is not pro-science?
It is true that I addressed the recipients of my letter as contributing to "a blog which has been identified as a 'pro-science blog'." Which it has been: The Panda's Thumb links to Afarensis from its list of "Science and Evolution Blogs". So, rather than being some damning admission, this is just an example of the common-sense practice of using the terms that a group uses to describe itself.
Added Later: krauze is claiming some sort of conspiracy about the poll he sent out. So let me clear it up for him, we did not receive marching orders from Elsberry. The response was the same because we all recognize a poorly designed survey (you didn't mention choice H: 'Intelligent design' is a subset of the arguments previously labeled 'creation science' in your post, by the by) when we see one.
Of course, I didn't say anything about a "conspiracy" or about "marching orders from Elsberry." I'm simply pointing out the likelihood that respondents were being influenced by the public pronouncements from ID critics that the poll was flawed because it lacked 'the only answer an ID critic would give'.
Finally, Jeffrey Langstraat of culturekitchen points out that my poll wasn't phrased like a professional survey (e.g. instead of having one question with multiple options, I should have had several questions with only a few possible answers to each). This is hardly surprising, considering that I dashed the thing off on my lunch break. As I said, it was just an informal survey. Some of the criticisms of the survey are a bit more severe if true, though, and I'll be looking at them in another post.
January 31st, 2006 at 1:18 pm
You know, although I haven't posted back here in a long time I've always thought to some degree that you lot were still fairly credible and somewhat more reasonable. I'm disappointed to see with this little fiasco that I was actually quite wrong. You gave out a poll with stacked definitions and poorly thought out options to the question you asked. The people you sent it to seem to have universally regarded it as worthless and having no real satisfactory answer.
Sometimes you just have to man things up and admit that you're wrong rather than trying to cast aspirations that none of the other bloggers can think for themselves (which is, in effect the impression I have recieved from your two posts). You're just making yourself look daft.
I'm sure if you wanted to try again with a better worded question and more reasonable responses you would get a better reception.
Comment by Aegeri — January 31, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I just read the poll. I didn't see anything terribly wrong with it. Yes, there was a clear subtext to the poll – what is your problem with that message?
Aegeri, What exactly is your problem with the poll? That it clarified the obvious truth that telic thinking about evolution is not the same as biblical creationism?
Comment by MatthewCromer — January 31, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Krauze,
Here's the nub of the matter. The point of a poll is to find out what people think. If your poll leaves out an obvious option for what people think, it's a lousy poll, and it might well be aimed at getting an answer that *you* want, rather than the answer the pollees would want.
Why didn't you include an answer along the lines of,
That is roughly what most of the bloggers you emailed actually think.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
So if it doesn't have the answer that "most of the bloggers" think, why is Elsberry trying to influence folks answering a choice on the poll at all, Nick?
Comment by Dane Parker — January 31, 2006 @ 6:17 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Do you think that Nick? Do you think that is the major reason ID is being explored and defended by it's major proponents?
Have you asked them directly?
In anycase, I think you made a good suggestion to Krauze.
If you respond, well, hey, we got at least one response!
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 31, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Nick wrote:
Nick, if that is how they feel, then G is indeed the correct answer, and demonstrably so. I can't comment on Krauze's motives in sending out the poll, and of course everyone is free to ignore the poll as many no doubt did. However, it is not inherently problematic for Krauze to fail to put in a particular wording when he also provides a completely correct option in G. The poll can of course be criticized for not capturing what certain individuals really think, but it would have at least accurately identified that the respondents are not laboring under the inaccurate assumptions of A-F.
Unfortunately, the respondents may well be laboring under the false impression you cited, but G would still be accurate and is a much less inflamatory statement. The respondents should be grateful to Krauze for providing a correct answer in G. In checking G, a respondent comes off as a lot less paranoid and ill-informed than if they had provided the potential answer you proferred.
Comment by Eric Anderson — January 31, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Krauze, next time you want to do this, I think the following poll would be better:
Comment by Deuce — January 31, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Hi Aegeri,
"You gave out a poll with stacked definitions"
Which definitions should I have used?
"and poorly thought out options to the question you asked."
The worst that can be said about it is that it lacked one specific answer that some?/many?/most? critics would have preferred. Of course, it allowed them to choose an answer that reflected this lack: G.
Had the poll gone as planned (that is, no coordination of answers), yet come back with a significant portion of the replies being "G", it would have told me that something was wrong with the poll. I could then have contacted some of the respondents, asking them to formulate the answer they felt was lacking. If many of the suggestions had converged on the option Elsberry claims as the consensus, I could have added it to the list, found a new survey sample, and tried again. If your experiment results in garbage, tinker with the settings, and try again.
Except in this case, the test subject has been destroyed. ID critics have filled the blogosphere on instructions on what to do when you're being polled by an ID-friendly blog. Any hope of performing an improved poll on an unbiased group is gone. As I said before, this is one research opportunity that the critics have destroyed.
"The people you sent it to seem to have universally regarded it as worthless and having no real satisfactory answer."
First of all, let's drop the "universally regarded", as there is evidence that many of the replies were coordinated. Second, the poll did contain a "satisfactory answer". John Lynch, for example, said: "The answer is, of course, 'G' and 'G' alone."
Comment by Krauze — January 31, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Hi Deuce,
You forgot E: "What would Elsberry do?"
Comment by Krauze — January 31, 2006 @ 7:07 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Hi Nick,
"Why didn't you include an answer along the lines of,"
Good question. Simply because I hadn't thought of it. For my options, I choose arguments I've heard in discussions, and the "becuase they use the same arguments" is a rather new development, and it didn't cross my mind.
However, Dane asks a good question: If this was really "what most of the bloggers actually think", why did Elsberry have to put up a post, advising people on the right answer, less than half an hour after having received the poll?
Comment by Krauze — January 31, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Yep, that is why we're talking about ID as opposed to creationism. Just look at everything from the origin of Pandas, a book aimed at high school biology classes, to Kansas right now, and all the support the Discovery Institute is giving the Kansas ID Network in its attempt to stick the favorite dozen or so ID talking points into the science standards. Public education has been the key concern of the major pushers of ID, from the beginning of ID to the present.
If these guys were seriously trying to establish a new scientific theory they would stop promoting it via the public schools altogether. The Big Bang, for instance, was not established via op-eds, lobbying state legislatures, and mucking with public school science standards. But even people like Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds, who apparently say they "hate court cases" and don't support promoting ID via the public high schools, are completely silent about ID proponents' machinations in Kansas. You just can't take these guys seriously.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Very nice. Very nice.
BTW Krauze, I think you've taken this whole thing very well. It's a good lesson in knowing who and what to take seriously (hint: not the group thinkers on either side).
Comment by bipod — January 31, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Nick,
Again, I appreciate your candid response and willingness to dialogue with me although we clearly disagree.
I don't share that view, primarily because my intense interest in ID has little to do with getting creation science taught in public schools. It easy for me to believe, the ID proponents are involved for the same reason I am, namely, we believe the hypothesis has a good chance of being true.
In any case, thank for answering my question and for visiting Telic Thoughts.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 31, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Krauze, none of the people you emailed the poll to need "coaching" from Wes Elsberry, for goodness sakes. We're the Dogmatic Darwinists, remember? We get this kind of thing all the time and we are pretty familiar with people who omit obvious options in their questions. Recently some guy was emailing everyone from PT posters to Ken Miller to the NAS claiming that Denton's molecular equidistance disproved Darwinism and asking us why the textbooks were so misleading. A whole bunch of us wrote back long replies pointing out why the questioner was full of it and therefore why the textbooks didn't need to be changed, which of course had utterly no impact on said crank. It would have saved everyone a lot of time if we had known/realized he was just spamming us and put our reply on a blog instead.
Why should people even bother taking your misleading poll when it is far more educational for you and everyone else to bash it for the obvious flaws?
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 8:08 pm
So Sal,
Do you support what the ID movement is doing in Kansas, or not? Stand up and be counted.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Topic: How to apply the scientific method to solve everyday problems.
In one corner: Perform experiments, gather data, and draw conclusions from your observations. If you only get garbage, tinker with the settings, and try again.
In the other corner: Put on the brass knuckles and the steel-toed boots and bash the investigator. That'll teach him.
Comment by Krauze — January 31, 2006 @ 8:15 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Krauze,
I suspect that a professional social scientist who did academic polls would give your poll a much harsher bashing. And anyway, why should we sit around waiting for you to get your "experiments" right — experiments conducted on us, apparently — by trial and error?
You are taking this whole thing in a strangely serious way, like we spoiled your science fair project or something. This is weird because at best the results would have been just another unscientific internet poll.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
On a personal level, yes, in general. Perhaps in some specifics, no. But I am not actively involved in Kansas, so I don't know if that counts as support…
If you're claiming the ID movement is trying to get ID taught in Kansas public schools, I'm not so sure one can make a sweeping case that that is true, as there will be dissent from that position even among pro-ID and pro-Creation Science elements. I don't support teaching of ID theory nor Creation Science in public schools at this time. I do however support students making a critical examination of evolutionary theory in their studies. Skepticism is a good thing…
The issue not that I don't want people to be exposed to the ID or even Creation Science. The issue is that public schools would be a disastarous venue to try to bring exposure to the students. Private channels and elective university classes are appropriate venues….
Regarding Dover, I think the pro-ID school board was a disgrace to ID and people of faith. What they did was ill-advised. Further how many students would they haver reached in one year? 250? And only giving them 1-minute of exposure to ID at that!
In contrast, our IDEA chapters in Virginia have reached probably 600 students over the last year and given them hours of quality exposre to ID and limited amounts of creation science (there is a lot interest in creation science!). I'm pleased to say, many of the pro-ID students graduated with degrees in scientific disciplines including biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, geology, etc…
We're planning a whopper of an event at Jason Rosenhouse's school in March.
But what I have gleaned, is that independent of the IDEA activities, a lot of students are already exposed to ID and creation science without having had it taught to them in public schools. That's why I am confident ID will prosper outside of public schools.
Also, the rewarding thing too has been meeting the science faculty who privately reject Darwinian evolution. That's been very heartwarming…
So I hope that conveys to you, my involvement and interest is very limited regarding public schools. The majority of interest is at the university level. That's where the action is. And dang it, it almost put tears in my eye to hear Jessica Young, an honors senior in biology, courageously stand up to the intimidation tactics of the GMU Darwinists and publicly diss Darwin on NPR. There will be many more Jessica Young's in the future because of ID. Praise be!
regards,
Salvador
PS
And I should add that my views on public shools are personal positions, and not an official position as an IDEA officer. For the record, the IDEA Chapter I'm associated with has chosen not to have an official position on these matters, they're important, but we felt it best to keep our distance from such a hot issue.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 31, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
So how can you expect to get legitimate data from such a minimal effort? Would any inferences you made from that data have been sound? Doubtful, unsound methodology leads to unsound results. If you wanted to know how ID critics perceive intelligent design all you had to do is read their blogs…
Comment by afarensis — January 31, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Thanks for the reply Sal,
You won't complain then, when critics note that the ID movement is pushing its agenda in public schools.
You also won't complain about these issues being decided in courts if a court case ever comes down against teaching ID in the guise of the sham "critical analysis of evolution." That's the risk you take when you push this stuff in the public schools.
Too bad, then, that the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education are pushing exactly the same stuff that was pushed in Dover via Of Pandas and People. Changing the label to the fig leaf "critical analysis" doesn't change what's going on.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 31, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 10:21 pm
You're welcome, Nick.
What? Me complain about the critics. I only say the sweetest things about you guys (cough). With my fingers crossed, I promise I won't complain (cough).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 31, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
January 31st, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Hi Afarensis,
"If you wanted to know how ID critics perceive intelligent design all you had to do is read their blogs"¦"
Sounds like a good idea. Let's pick this post, by Jack Krebs, who've identified himself as having received the poll. In his post, Jack outlines where he's "coming from" by way of short bullet points, one of which is:
To me, that looks like Jack's position would be well described by C: "Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution." But according to Jack's comments in the "Activism" thread, my "list of options does not include the statements that I think would most accurately describe the ways that ID is a from of creationism." Looks like reading the blogs of ID critics comes with hazards of its own.
Comment by Krauze — January 31, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 12:50 am
Thanks Krauze for lifting the rock on the ants nest to see how things work, I don't know if you knew this would happen but either way I dips me lid to you.
How is it that Elsberry and co. on the one hand thought that the poll was hopelessly flawed but on the other hand needed to hold people's hand through it? What paranoia!! The darwinian thought police are on the prowl look out if you dissent! Just let them pull the strings and all will be well!
Brilliant Krauze Brilliant
Comment by willo — February 1, 2006 @ 12:50 am
February 1st, 2006 at 12:56 am
Krauze quotes from a post I made at the Panda's Thumb a number of months ago:
"The anti-evolution movement has two main branches, the young-earth creationists and the Intelligent Designists (IDists),"
and then replies,
"To me, that looks like Jack's position would be well described by C: "Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution." But according to Jack's comments in the "Activism" thread, my "list of options does not include the statements that I think would most accurately describe the ways that ID is a from of creationism." "
Two points:
1. "Rejecting evolution" is way too vague a phrase, because that could mean someone who rejects all evolution, even micro, to one who accepts common descent but thinks it has to have been guided (as in DaveScot's recently deleted post over at Uncommon Descent." So my very general statement about the two branches of anti-evolution does not mean that I think C is a good statement, because it doesn't describe at all what aspects of evolution are to be considered as rejected.
2. Note also that I said that "list of options does not include the statements that I think would most accurately describe the ways that ID is a from of creationism." Even if I felt that C was an accurate statement, that doesn't mean that it best describes the way in which I think ID is a form of creationism.
So I don't think that Krauze's reading of my post and his subsequent analysis here illuminated very much.
And last, I'd like to point out that if Krauze is really interested in the ways that ID critics perceive ID to be related to, similar to, identical with (or whatever) creationism, why doesn't he just ask? Why write a set of questions from his point of view in order to find out what our point of view is?
I invite Krauze over to our forums at http://www.kcfs.org, where he could ask his question and probably get some people to respond.
Comment by jkrebs — February 1, 2006 @ 12:56 am
February 1st, 2006 at 1:07 am
Hmmm…
Hypothesis – Telic Thoughts, for all their claims to the contrary, is really no different from the political ID movement.
Prediction – we'll see, on occasion, machinations indistinguishable from those seen in other politics-driven arenas.
Data – Krauze's push poll (thanks to edarrell for pointing this out). Where do we see push polls? In science journals? At scientific meetings? In any scholarly scientific venue? No, no, and no. Push polling is a wholly political enterprise.
Conclusion – the data point Krauze gives us supports the hypothesis.
Comment by Art — February 1, 2006 @ 1:07 am
February 1st, 2006 at 1:32 am
Nick writes:
So that leads to a question. Are most of these bloggers closed-minded about ID or do they typically keep an open-mind about shams?
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2006 @ 1:32 am
February 1st, 2006 at 1:43 am
Art:
This is silly. All human interaction can be labeled "political" if you try hard enough. If Art is to raise a serious hypothesis, he needs to precisely define "political" and precisely define "ID movement."
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2006 @ 1:43 am
February 1st, 2006 at 7:44 am
"The Big Bang, for instance, was not established via op-eds, lobbying state legislatures, and mucking with public school science standards."
The "Big Bang" was, just like ID, initially widely and vocally opposed by the vast majority of scientists, PRIMARILY because to them, it seemed to support the idea of a Creator. But we all know scientists (except for those who believe in Design) are completely objective in their scientific assessments, right?
Comment by Douglas — February 1, 2006 @ 7:44 am
February 1st, 2006 at 8:30 am
Hi Jack,
"1. "Rejecting evolution" is way too vague a phrase, because that could mean someone who rejects all evolution, even micro, to one who accepts common descent but thinks it has to have been guided (as in DaveScot's recently deleted post over at Uncommon Descent.)"
No, it couldn't. I clearly defined "evolution" as "the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common ancestors via descent with modification".
But this illustrates another problem with Afarensis' suggestion. When reading the word "anti-evolutionism", I think of someone who rejects common descent. But you obviously have a different definition of the word, according to which one can be an anti-evolutionist if only one thinks that evolution was guided. Imagine that I had combed the blogs of ID critics for statements that I thought represented their beliefs about the relationsship between ID and creationism, and posted a survey based on them.
If so, we would have the current discussion raised to the power of N. Instead of a couple of definitions and a missing option, we'd now be discussing every statement and their various interpretations. And whenever an ID critic announced that his or her beliefs were contrary to my interpretation of their statements, you'd bet we'd be hearing accusations of quote-mining and politicial motivations on my part.
"Even if I felt that C was an accurate statement, that doesn't mean that it best describes the way in which I think ID is a form of creationism."
But the accusations we're currently hearing is that all of my options were strawmen, which no thinking ID critic could ever hold.
"I invite Krauze over to our forums at http://www.kcfs.org, where he could ask his question and probably get some people to respond."
Yes, that would also have been fun (provided, of course, that respondents didn't play off each others' answers). But as I said, that opportunity no longer exists, as Elsberry et al. have made sure to broadcast what to reply the next time you're polled by an ID supporter.
Comment by Krauze — February 1, 2006 @ 8:30 am
February 1st, 2006 at 10:14 am
Hi Krauze,
I guess I feel that if by "rejecting evolution" you meant "rejecting common descent" you would have said so.
Here are two issues:
1. No one is clear about what rejecting common descent means. For instance, Paul Nelson seems to think that the work of Woese et al about lateral gene transfer early in life is evidence against common descent (I know you wrote "one or few" but I'm trying to delineate a spectrum), others think that speciation can't happen at all, others think the "kinds" were created, others the phyla during the Cambrian, and so on.
2. Also, what does "descent with modification" mean? I ask because in the discussion on the deleted thread over at Uncommon Descent people were discussing, I think, the idea that the modifications are guided – either special creation at the genetic level or specific guided changes through some type of undetectable and un-miraculous genetic modifications.
You write, " Imagine that I had combed the blogs of ID critics for statements that I thought represented their beliefs about the relationsship between ID and creationism, and posted a survey based on them.
If so, we would have the current discussion raised to the power of N. Instead of a couple of definitions and a missing option, we'd now be discussing every statement and their various interpretations."
Yes, but that's not our fault – that's the fault of the vagueness and unspecificity of ID proponents, as well as the fact that the ID proponents aren't out there discussing these various issues themselves. As many ID critics have pointed out, ID needs to make specific hypotheses before there is something specific to analyze: until then the vagueness of ID is the issue itself.
So why not open up a thread here, or http://www.kcfs.org, on what ID specifically says about common descent, and what creationism is, and how they are different and/or alike; and get input from both ID supporters and ID critics. That might be useful.
But until such time that ID does make more specific claims, and until the ID movement as a whole starts to address things among themselves at that level of specificity, there won't be much we have to go on to answer the kinds of questions that were in your poll.
Comment by jkrebs — February 1, 2006 @ 10:14 am
February 1st, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Hi Jack,
"1. No one is clear about what rejecting common descent means. For instance, Paul Nelson seems to think that the work of Woese et al about lateral gene transfer early in life is evidence against common descent (I know you wrote "one or few" but I'm trying to delineate a spectrum),"
Actually, Paul usually makes it clear that he's talking about universal common descent, that is, descent from one common ancestor (not "a few"). Besides, what really matters is whether you agree with it. Do you think Woese rejects common descent? Is he an "anti-evolutionist"
"2. Also, what does "descent with modification" mean?"
That organisms have descended from one another, being modified over the generations. For example, in genetically modified corn some of the modification has been intelligently design by humans, but we still regard those breeds of corn as sharing an ancestry with other corns.
"Yes, but that's not our fault – that's the fault of the vagueness and unspecificity of ID proponents, as well as the fact that the ID proponents aren't out there discussing these various issues themselves."
So let me get this straight: I cannot quote a statement from you in which you characterize intelligent design as anti-evolutionism without being accused of quote-mining, because ID supporters haven't themselves discussed whether intelligent design is anti-evolutionist?
"So why not open up a thread here, or http://www.kcfs.org, on what ID specifically says about common descent, and what creationism is, and how they are different and/or alike; and get input from both ID supporters and ID critics. That might be useful."
Not to finding out how ID critics perceive intelligent design. What you're suggesting sounds more like an opportunity for some ID critics to justify labelling ID as "anti-evolutionism".
Comment by Krauze — February 1, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pm
I don't think there's much reason to keep this discussion going on much longer, but I'll offer a few more comments.
Krauze writes,
"Actually, Paul usually makes it clear that he's talking about universal common descent, that is, descent from one common ancestor (not "a few"). Besides, what really matters is whether you agree with it. Do you think Woese rejects common descent? Is he an "anti-evolutionist"?
The aspect of common descent that is relevant to this discussion is not the issue that Nelson and Woese and others are discussing. The issue is whether amphibians evolved into reptiles, or whether homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, etc.: we're talking about whether once life got started (be it one unique single-celled organism or a milieu in which elements of life intermingled), evolution of the various phyla and further taxon levels proceeded from there. That is the issue I am interested in, and the one that I think about when "common descent" is mentioned.
Also, when I wrote, "Yes, but that's not our fault – that's the fault of the vagueness and unspecificity of ID proponents, as well as the fact that the ID proponents aren't out there discussing these various issues themselves."
Krauze replied, "So let me get this straight: I cannot quote a statement from you in which you characterize intelligent design as anti-evolutionism without being accused of quote-mining, because ID supporters haven't themselves discussed whether intelligent design is anti-evolutionist?"
I didn't accuse you of quote mining. I used what you quoted as a springboard to reply – I said nothing negative about you finding and using a quote of mine.
My point is that ID advocates have not defined what in fact ID means with enough specificity for me to comment very specifically about it. I'm comfortable saying that I think ID is "anti-evolutionary", but what that means depends on what flavor of ID we are talking about. Almost none of the anti-evolutionary perspectives are completely against evolution, and most of the anti-evolutionary perspectives deny some level of common descent (of the type described above.)
Last, when i wrote, "So why not open up a thread here, or http://www.kcfs.org, on what ID specifically says about common descent, and what creationism is…",
Krauze replied, "Not to finding out how ID critics perceive intelligent design. What you're suggesting sounds more like an opportunity for some ID critics to justify labelling ID as "anti-evolutionism". "
My point is simple, if you want to find out how ID critics perceive intelligent design, why not enter into a discussion with them on the subject? I'm sure that in that discussion many ID critics would describe ID as anti-evolutionary, but if there were a discussion in which you really wanted to understand the critics, you could use that judgment as an impetus to find out more. Also, such a discussion would help because I think several flavors of ID would have to be clearly identified so that critics would know more specifically what they were responding to.
Comment by jkrebs — February 1, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
February 1st, 2006 at 7:57 pm
Nick wrote:
Let's see, exactly what creationist "stuff" is being pushed by the Kansas Board of Education? Didn't seem to be anything in the science standards that would qualify for this accusation. If this is true, I for one would like to know. Or perhaps this is just mindless repetition of a standard NCSE talking point?
Comment by Eric Anderson — February 1, 2006 @ 7:57 pm
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Krauze,
A very interesting poll, which the blogger need not respond to directly, but which they can of their own initiative comment on is something on the order which I presente here at KCFS and which Liz Craig and Jack Krebs responded to. I extend my appreciation for their willingness to participate:
Poll: Should Creationist/IDist Biology Majors Be Denied Diplomas and Teachers Denied Tenure?
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Here's a poll question: Design?
What do you mean by "design"
Too obvious? Too suggestive? Too biased?
Toooo ooobbvioousss?
Comment by Rock — February 2, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
February 2nd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
The standards repeatedly challenge common ancestry with e.g. gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, "irreducible complexity" (those exact words are in the standards — looks like ID to me), the silly evolution-can't- produce-new-genetic information argument, and many other common ID/creationist talking points. It's all found in Pandas, in ID generally, and in the preceding creationist literature. The front page of the standards is one big government-sponsored advertisement for the scientific-ness of ID, even though they say that the standards "neither mandate nor prohibit" teaching about ID (wink wink, nudge nudge).
It's all very transparent — the changes to the science standards were written and promoted by members of the Intelligent Design Network, and the Board of Education members who passed it are avowed creationists, some of the young-earth variety. If they were consistent, all of the high-minded ID advocates who condemned pushing ID in the Dover policy would be condemning it in Kansas as well, but they all seem to be strangely silent.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 2, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
February 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Nick,
Thank you for participating again. Since we're talking polls, what would you consider unfactual, or unfair?
Let's start with identifying the spectrum of empirical facts versus inferences versus interpretations versus outright speculations.
There are Biblical creationists children in the school. Their religious beliefs are that God made life fully formed. Is it fair to take unproven speculations, pass them on as "empirical facts" to destroy their religious beliefs? Is that fair? It doesn't matter whether a scientist has offered the speculation, it's still a speculation. A speculation is defined as something a scientist admits is a speculation….
Is it unfair to tell them that there is a very tiny minority of biologists who do not accept evolution?
What wrong with that. Are you claiming common ancestry is absolute truth? You may not like the fact some people dispute it, but are you in a position to declare on behalf of all the univerise it's true? I'd say unless you and the scientists were there to establish it as an eye witness, there is a little room for skepticism. And unless you have direct facts, it's a little unfair to the kids who believe in special creation, for you to dismiss and destroy their religious beliefs.
I'm not asking your legal opininon. I'm asking what you personally feel is fair or unfair. Do you feel a public school teacher, or anyone for that matter, can speak on behalf of God and and say common ancestry is absolute fact? Unless scienfiic empirical facts can absolutely establish common ancestry is fact, I'd say it's only fair to give space to a religious beliefs, given the magnitude of what you are willing to destroy in the childrens belief system.
If that's your attitude, that you want to revise the faith beliefs of students and replace them with the dominant scientific view, that you won't rest until their professing acceptance of that theory, then fine, come out and say it. Tell the evangelical creationists out there you don't want their kids to believe in special creation, and you want to see to it the schools enforce that outcome. That it's for the better good they relinquish the way they believe God acts in the world in favor of the dominant scientific view. That there is no room for scientists to hold minority opinions, what ever the reason….
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 2, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 am
Thanks for proving my point Sal. How dare you offend my religious beliefs and teach good science in science class!
Me, I side with what George W. Bush said in the State of the Union this week:
That's a lot of time, money, and effort to blow if you're just going to scrap the bit about rigorous science education and professional science teachers, and teach the doctrines of a particular religious group instead.
But, I'm sure that China and Japan will be perfectly happy to take the lead in bioinformatics and biotechnology if we refuse to…
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 3, 2006 @ 4:16 am
February 3rd, 2006 at 4:43 am
Nick,
Thank you for trying to respond, but since it's important enough an issue, can I make sure I understand you right and the implications of your postion. Is it fair to say this represents your position and it's logical consequences:
1. school children with creationist religious beliefs should have those religious beliefs changed since it impedes their scientific understanding
2. public schools are an appropriate means of changing their religious beliefs regarding origins since such beliefs are an impediment to their ability to do science
Does that materially represent your position? I think that's actually an even better blog poll question…
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 3, 2006 @ 4:43 am
February 3rd, 2006 at 8:17 am
Nick Matzke,
"The standards repeatedly challenge common ancestry with e.g. gaps in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, 'irreducible complexity' (those exact words are in the standards "” looks like ID to me), the silly evolution-can't- produce-new-genetic information argument, and many other common ID/creationist talking points."
I respectfully intone, "So what?" All those things are legitimate SCIENTIFIC issues: there ARE gaps in the fossil record, there IS an apparent "explosion" of fully-formed life in the Cambrian layer, "irreducible complexity" IS an apparently reasonable and valid understanding of certain types of organization (even, or at least, theoretically), and "evolution-can't-produce-new-genetic information" is far from a "silly argument" (it is no more "silly" than the ridiculous claim that "evolution-can-SO-produce-new-genetic-information"). The mere fact that these scientific facts and observations "challenge" the idea of common ancestry do not mean they are born of a Christian (i.e., "Creationist", with a capital "C") faith; and, even more importantly, even if they were, they are still scientific, and not mere "faith-issues". There is no more reason to avoid them or cast them out of "science" or science education than there would be to dismiss scientific evidence which atheistic scientists believe support their atheism. I'm amazed at the widespread knee-jerk response of so many scientists in dealing with arguments from Creation Science (or in dealing with arguments which merely stem from Intelligent Design): "Oooh, that stuff seems to support Creationism; it's therefore religious in nature, and therefore is not science, and must be censored and burned at the stake."
Comment by Douglas — February 3, 2006 @ 8:17 am
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Hi Jack,
"The aspect of common descent that is relevant to this discussion is not the issue that Nelson and Woese and others are discussing. The issue is whether amphibians evolved into reptiles, or whether homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens, etc.: we're talking about whether once life got started (be it one unique single-celled organism or a milieu in which elements of life intermingled), evolution of the various phyla and further taxon levels proceeded from there. That is the issue I am interested in, and the one that I think about when "common descent" is mentioned."
Indeed. And that was also the sense of the term that I encapsulated in my definition ("one or a few common ancestors"). So why did we have to waste time with that whole diversion about Paul Nelson and Woese? Obviously, we both mean the same by "common descent", so what was the point of your claim, "No one is clear about what rejecting common descent means" ?
Krauze: "So let me get this straight: I cannot quote a statement from you in which you characterize intelligent design as anti-evolutionism without being accused of quote-mining, because ID supporters haven't themselves discussed whether intelligent design is anti-evolutionist?"
Jack: "I didn't accuse you of quote mining."
I didn't say that you did. Remember, this all started with Afarensis' claim that instead of doing a poll, I should have read the blogs of ID critics. I responded by using a statement from an ID critic (you), showing how easy it was to reach different interpretations of it. As I continued:
"Instead of a couple of definitions and a missing option, we'd now be discussing every statement and their various interpretations. And whenever an ID critic announced that his or her beliefs were contrary to my interpretation of their statements, you'd bet we'd be hearing accusations of quote-mining and politicial motivations on my part."
It was at this point that you entered the discussion, arguing that "that's the fault of the vagueness and unspecificity of ID proponents, as well as the fact that the ID proponents aren't out there discussing these various issues themselves." In other words, if I get accused of quote-mining, it's my own darn fault because of a lack of discussion among ID supporters.
"I'm comfortable saying that I think ID is "anti-evolutionary", but what that means depends on what flavor of ID we are talking about. Almost none of the anti-evolutionary perspectives are completely against evolution, and most of the anti-evolutionary perspectives deny some level of common descent (of the type described above.)"
Do you think there's any "flavor of ID" that isn't anti-evolutionary?
"My point is simple, if you want to find out how ID critics perceive intelligent design, why not enter into a discussion with them on the subject?"
This was explained in my previous post:
"For a while, I've been disappointed with the lack of sociological data concerning how those who see themselves as "defending science" perceive intelligent design. There is plenty of evidence that this group suffers from stereotypes (such as Douglas Altshuler claiming that, "People in the ID community have said that we don't even know how bees fly."), but no systematic surveys. So I decided to do my own little informal survey, e-mailing various ID critics and asking them about intelligent design."
So, I have indeed been engaging in discussions with ID critics – in fact, what do you think happens on a daily basis in the comments on this blog? The point of the poll was to gather data in a more systematic way, by having a number of ID critics answer an identical question.
Comment by Krauze — February 3, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
February 3rd, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Jack, one more thing: In a previous comment, you said: "This is what I emailed Krauze, and I did so before I got any other emails about the poll". Were you also receiving e-mails about the poll?
Comment by Krauze — February 3, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
February 11th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
[...]
Over on Telic thoughts Jack is asking about ID's position on common descent here, here, and here. I'm going to assume this is an honest question. ID has no position on [...]
Pingback by Uncommon Descent » Jack Krebs Asking About Common Descent — February 11, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
February 13th, 2006 at 8:06 am
To get a more accurate perspective on what the Big Bang theory had to do to be accepted (and what the real response to the theory was), I recommend "The Big Bang" by Simon Singh. It's just come out in paperback.
Sadly for your point, you won't find a "vast majority" of scientists blindly opposing the new theory because it conflicted with their religious beliefs. You will find quite a few who objected because it conflicted with Isaac Newton's model of an eternal, unchanging (on the big scale) and infinite universe which had reigned for over two centuries.
Instead, what you will find is an army of Big Bang supporters combing the skies and physics theory for theories and data that supported their position. They scratched for every possible observation that could confirm or deny their theory. After decades of work, both theoretical and observational, what finally tipped the theory into the "justified" column was the prediction of the microwave background by two different groups and the disovery of the same by Arno and Penzias.
Curiously, Singh doesn't mention any attempts to force the Big Bang into the nation's high schools and colleges, nor were there any political or PR attempts to justify/force the theory into main stream science. No pleas to give a struggling new science a break, either, nor were there any Discovery Institute style attempts to "reform" science by gutting it of methodological naturalism and "improving" it by elevating supernatural "evidence", hunches and deeply held feelings to the standard of scientific evidence.
Instead, you had about three decades of pure scientific endeavour (read: hard work) before the Big Bang was accepted.
Kind of exactly opposite what we see with ID today.
Comment by DataDoc — February 13, 2006 @ 8:06 am