Show Me the Evidence
by JoyTufts philosopher and evangelical atheist Daniel Dennett published an Op-Ed Article in the New York Times Sunday [8/28] in response to President Bush's suggestion that schools should expose students to different 'schools of thought' when asked about Intelligent Design. It's a re-hash of Dennett's usual arguments against ID hypotheses, but he goes farther this time by labeling ID as a "Hoax," then charging the DI in general and Bill Dembski in particular. He is careful to generalize to all "ID supporters" and "Intelligent Design community," but if he'd mentioned me specifically in terms of perpetrating a hoax, I'd sue the heck out of him for libel.
Libel, noun
1. a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs or pictures that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public.
[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]
Let's take a look at the charge Dennett has made, for which he has supplied no evidence other than his usual arguments we've all heard a thousand times -
Dennett, paragraph 2:
"Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done."
Hoax, noun
1. An act intended to deceive or trick. 2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
[American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition]
In the specific context of this charged "Hoax," Dennett introduces an individual -
"William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as "some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers." What looks to scientists – and is – a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting."
Looks to me like William Dembski has been publicly accused of perpetrating a hoax via 'guilt by association' in that charge lobbed against the DI by Daniel Dennett. Hoax is fraud – a crime. This could be actionable, and I for one wouldn't mind seeing Dennett take a fall for it. Just imagine the great courtroom drama we could all look forward to on Court TV! Dennett could call Dawkins and Pinker and Singer to testify on his behalf, the Brighties could submit briefs in support of the defense, and the jury would get a good understanding of precisely what issues are actually at stake here – dueling metaphysics at its nastiest!
Of course I don't expect that Dembski will file suit, nor do I expect that he could win the case if he did, as Dennett is careful to make guilt associative rather than particular. Given the nasty level of rhetoric in general and the highly public nature of these debates. But I can certainly imagine how much fun it would be. Dennett has deliberately upped the stakes on ad homs in this debate by making a criminal charge. The feds are already very much aware of the borderline legality of SOP in public institutions of science via the Sternberg mess. It's entirely possible that if Sternberg seeks tort remedy for defamation – and wins – state and federal legislators will introduce bills establishing much greater public oversight of what goes on in the practice of science, at least in public institutions and public universities.
So it appears to me that the evident desperation of notable DarwinDefenders in these debates is ensuring their worst nightmares might well come true – the public will be empowered to exert direct pressure on institutions, and likely influence the distribution of public financial support for research too. I have long tried to warn about this very danger inherent in the intemperate rhetoric and hate-filled atheist evangelism coming out of this corruptive boil on the hind end of legitimate science. Keep it up, dodos. You'll have no one to blame but yourselves.
August 29th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Wikipedia:
A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. Generally there is some material object involved, which is actually a forgery. Unlike a fraud or con (which usually has an audience of one or a few), which are made for illicit financial or material gain, or a fraud which is perpetrated to support a false religion, a hoax is often perpetrated as a practical joke with a humorous intent, to cause embarrassment, for personal aggrandizement or to serve political purposes.
So Dennett is saying that IDists actually know that ID is false but are proposing it as a hoax for purposes of humorous self aggrandizement? He's really giving Dembski a lot of credit here for being a grand manipulating mathematical genius who knows ID is hooey, but has spent his life hoaxing the public in order to sell books and make a big joke. Wow, Dembski has out-brighted the Brighties!
Or, does Dennett not know what the word "hoax" means? Well of course that's impossible because he's the Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University and he is a (self described) Bright.
Comment by Stuart Harris — August 29, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
August 29th, 2005 at 11:13 pm
The majority of ID critics I have run across come to the table with a deeply entrenched stereotype "“ if you take ID seriously, you are either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by emotional needs for your religion. I've seen this stereotype in play 100s of times. So [yawn] Dennett is simply dipping from the "dishonest" choice. Dime-a-dozen.
But consider the implications. Dennett's fellow Bright, Richard Dawkins equates ID proponents with Holocaust deniers , which I suppose is somewhat better than saying they are worse than child molesters (Dawkins saves that wisdom for you Catholics out there). Now, if you really think ID is a hoax, and really think ID is the same as denying the Holocaust, then it's safe to say your mind is closed shut concerning this issue. Shut, nailed, and welded.
I wonder what it's like to go through our world with such a sense of certainty.
Comment by MikeGene — August 29, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 11:01 am
[...] Others as well wrote related things, like: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=243 But here, I want to call your attention to another very common bluff that we see at our posting boards, "the D [...]
Pingback by Teleological » Calling Darwin’s Bluff — August 30, 2005 @ 11:01 am
August 30th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
What kind or category of 'evidence' where you looking for, Joy? Are you discounting philosophy in favour of (your) physical science?
The King, Queen or Court of judges will likely not applaud or bow to mere frivolity of discourse. This is what some persons who frequent evolution, creation and/or i+d message boards are wont to display. Insightful commentary about teleology and 'how Darwin got it wrong (or not entirely right)' is welcome, if nonetheless rare when it comes to applying i+d concepts in practical settings.
Material, empirical, pragmatic, physical or perhaps spiritual evidence?
We ought to note that the minority of ID critics actually provide better arguments than the majority that Mike Gene faces and confronts on a semi-daily basis. But he likely won't confront Lamoureux, Peacocke or Murphy, rather simply labelling them 'dime-a-dozen' while presenting his ID views as 'scientific' or somehow relevant and/or resonant. Though ID itself is:
One might wish to ask when do a person's views count as insufficient when dealing with topics outside of their knowledge spheres? Not Science, but science, in a specialized compartmentalized sense. Post-modern in tone, form and structure.
Dennett's views, when they focus on cognitive studies, will not be derailed by i+d-ists who take no time to study and excel in that domain. Biology, physics, cosmology, information theory, zoology, please add your checkered flag to the conversation. But please don't discount the philosophy of mind and consciousness in elevating techno-scientific accomplishments in a society of plenty of electricity and consumption.
Yes, with faith, honour and even a whole lotta good sense!
It's a bit surprising to think about the possibility, and I'm not accusing her of this, but when does Joy's careful defense against neo-Darwinian Dogmatism in the names of 'scientism, naturalism and secularism' turn into an equally unsupportable promotion of i+d as specified physicalist ignorance?
Ohh yes, folks, it's no hoax, though we are in the Information Age…no doubt (not Gwen Stefani)! Plug in and join the fun!
When you ask an IDist what the difference is between human-made and non-human-made i+d, get ready to watch them RUN. Show me the evidence (or the theory) if you can.
Comment by g arago — August 30, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
'Yes, with faith, honour and even a whole lotta good sense!'
(note – this wasn't meant in reference to D. Dennett)
Comment by g arago — August 30, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
August 30th, 2005 at 7:15 pm
Sorry, Greg. It was just a comment on a commentary. I'm outta here for a week or so, so maybe someone else will help you out (if they can interpret your English). Ta!
Comment by Joy — August 30, 2005 @ 7:15 pm
September 10th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
[...] st 29, http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=700 ">2005 Others as well wrote related things, like: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=243 But here, I want to call your attention to another very common bluff that we see at our posting boards, "the D [...]
Pingback by Tester Blog » test 5 — September 10, 2005 @ 5:59 pm