Teaching Anti-Evolution Increases Acceptance of Evolution
by MikeGeneFrom Here:
A few years ago, a biology instructor at a university in Washington State set out to test this idea.
First-year biology majors were divided into four sections. Two groups were assigned portions of Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker," a pro-evolution book, as well as a book advocating intelligent design called "Icons of Evolution." These groups also viewed a short animated creationist film and read an online rebuttal of creationist ideas, as well as materials on the nature and history of science. The other two groups read only evolutionary materials.
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so "” and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Verhey pulled a bait and switch. I confronted Verhey last year about this. He had no response.
I know of no creationist or ID proponents that would introduce creationism or ID via Wells book, as Wells book does not describe nor even promote ID explicitly. Verhey misrepresented what Wells book was about. ID nor special creation was not even advocated in Wells book explicitly.
When Behe and Dembski used Denton's book the results were different. When Walter Brown's book is given, test polling in college classes that Brown followed showed highly favorable reactions.
I have a smaller informal polling set within the community that I work with, and I have found the opposite of Verhey when serious ID material is taught in methodical fashion by someone more familiar with ID material and favorable to it.
What Verhey's study tells me is ID should not be easily entrusted to people like Verhey or public school teachers inimical to ID. Anti-evolutionism in the hands of people disdainful of ID or creation science will have a different effect than if the hands of someone favorable and competent to teach it.
Of course, the question should be studied further, but before judgement is rendered, it would only be fair to survey whether Verhey gave ID a fair hearing or pulled a bait and switch.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 17, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Science, friends, science!
We don't have easy access, apparently, to the journal where this research was published, so I don't want to jump to conclusions, but Salvador Cordova's comment is suggestive. I wonder: did the article comment on limitations of the research, such as Wells's book not having been presented by a teacher who agreed with it? Were any other of Salvador's legitimate concerns addressed?
(It's standard practice in reporting social science research–which is what this was–to specify the limitations of the study. It's almost unheard of to leave it out.)
There was obviously a breakdown somewhere. If we believe the best, maybe we can suppose the journal article was presented very responsibly. If so, then the problem was in the journalism about it.
Either way, what's missing, at the point where the public receives it, is genuine science. And I thought it was the ID people who were supposed to be guilty of that.
Comment by TomG — February 17, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Wells book has almost nothing to do with Intellient Design. It isn't even very anti-evolution. It is simply anti-evolutionary-propoganda.
Comment by johnnyb — February 17, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Yeah I simply don't buy this at all. No way did the reading of an ID proponent like Wells result in greater "acceptance" of evolution. This is simply not in line with human nature, hence the use of propaganda in times of war. You can get people to believe almost anything, but when you can take what you just learned, look it up and verify it yourself, which is the case with ID vs. NDE, it's really difficult to remain in the Darwin camp. I'd bet $100 right now that this "study" is completely bogus. Only way these results are correct, is if the students had someone looking over their shoulders every step of the way to help "correct" them and point them in the direction of "science". In other words, "go ahead and read this material, then I will interpret it for you and tell you what to think about it."
Comment by shaner74 — February 17, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
The original document as an experimental research project WAS available at Verhey's website at cwu, but I can no longer find it. Some time ago, I read through it and even used some of Verhey's numbers in some of my net arguments.
What bothered me was Wells book was pitted against Dawkins book. That was wrong as Wells is not comprehesive critique like Dentons book. The outcome might have been different if it were Denton versus Dawkins, but the only problem is Denton's book is a bit too advanced for a college freshman. Actually, I can hardly think of any solid ID book that isn't a bit challenging for the average college freshman.
I have Wells book. You won't learn what ID or creation science is by reading Wells book. Yet Verhey represented this to the students as if this is what creation science and ID are about. That was wrong and I had serious issue with that.
I confronted Verhey at Pandas Thumb when Gary Hurd disputed his statistical methods of Verhey a while back (can't remember exactly when, that was before the Mirecki incident and Hurd leaving PT in a huff).
I have mixed feelings. After all, what if Verhey found mass defections in the presence of ID materials???
Will Provine had some experience with this and also did cause the class to budge a little bit in his direction. When Dembski taught from Denton's book he got 100% defections from Darwinian evolution being an established fact.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — February 17, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
This reminds me of a phone call I received from my son who was away at college. In some off-hand comments a chemistry professor touched on the subject of intelligent design and said that IDists tended to be charlatans who were dishonest about evolution. My son asked me to send him some information via e-mail which I did immediately. He intended to meet with the prof and discuss ID in front of him and some classmates but decided against it after some thought. It was a reminder to me as to how much influence instructors have and how they can use it to advance their own agendas.
Comment by Bradford — February 17, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
February 17th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
I suspect that a phenomenon was documented in this study that is different than reported. My guess is that when an instructor presents both sides of a topic, the students conclude that the instructor isn't somehow scared of the alternative view, he is therefore seen to be trustworthy.
I therefore suggest that if the study were to have a number of professors present the same data in exactly the same way, only stating their opinion at the end, that the student body will have been swayed to the view of the professor, and much more so than if the professor does not present the opposing side.
In any case, if the scientific community really wants ID to be steifled, and if the scientific community really trusts the scientific method and the stuff published in journals, they should be out teaching the ID side, as done by this professor.
Comment by bFast — February 17, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 2:33 am
What is being left out here is that Verhey's class read Wells's Icons of Evolution and my long talkorigins critique of it.
So the real message is that teaching anti-evolution increases the acceptance of evolution if the anti-evolution is accompanied with a systematic rebuttal from yours truly.
While I was quite tickled with Verhey's result, there were some problems with his study including (a) he mixed the religion and science into one linear scale rather than separating the two issues and (b) he had small numbers so there were statistical questions as indicated in this PT post.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 18, 2007 @ 2:33 am
February 18th, 2007 at 2:57 am
Nick, did you read Mike Gene's whole post? (all 3 paragraphs).
How's it being left out again?
Comment by Doug — February 18, 2007 @ 2:57 am
February 18th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Although it sounds as though this particular study was problematic, it seems likely that any unbiased exposure to information from both sides of the evolution vs creationism (as opposed to ID) debate would tend to shift students away from creationism. It's probably not a coincidence that even amongst ID-friendly individuals, an increased level of biological understanding seems to correlate with rejection of Biblical creationism. The creationist viewpoint simply doesn't sit comfortably with modern science.
I'd love to see a well-controlled study of this, but my prediction would be that a course in which students were alternately taught by competent evolutionary biologists, ID advocates and creationists would result in a profound shift away from Biblical creationism towards a mixture of moderate ID and evolutionary views.
Comment by Mesk — February 18, 2007 @ 3:41 am
February 18th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Mesk:
I would have to agree with this. As I have explained before, I used to be a creationist. I wasn't raised a creationist, but I became one because I had only a typical high-school level understanding of biology/evolution when I was first confronted with creationist arguments. For me, at least, it became more and more difficult to hold this position as I learned more and more about biology.
What makes my story somewhat unique is that I had completely transitioned to a Ken Miller-type version of theistic evolution by the time I was confronted with Behe and ID. In this case, I originally defended Behe as a gadfly/devil's advocate, but soon began to envision that this ID concept had some real potential. The rest is basically public history, as I have been fleshing out the notion of ID evolution at ARN, on my web page, and here.
All of this explains two things about MikeGene. First, I have little patience for Nick's attempt to equate creationism with ID because I am in the privileged position of knowing he is wrong. I should know "“ I was a creationist and now invest significant energy thinking about evolution and ID. I have lived, seen, and known the differences. It may be true that many ID proponents are also creationists (in fact, I'd say it is true), but it is simply false that all ID proponents are also creationists. There is a growing, and vocal minority, of us ID evolutionists and it is intellectually dishonest to ignore that. Perhaps after this little book comes out (and it should not be much longer), it will become even more difficult to ignore and stereotype the ID evolutionists.
Second, while I have opposed teaching ID in schools, I have opposed it on principle. I have never shared in this hysteria about the teaching of ID resulting in the downfall of science, science education, and America. If ID was taught in the schools (ie, the Dover decision went the other way), two outcomes would have been likedly: a) the sense of threatiness in academia would have grown exponentially and a social environment far, far more hostile to ID would have ensued (yes, more hostile than what exists) and b), a massive "teaching moment" would be had, where scientists everywhere would have developed multiple on-line lessons to help teachers teach about "ID and evolution," giving Mesk the data he needs to confirm his prediction.
The irony of our current social situation could not be any larger.
Comment by MikeGene — February 18, 2007 @ 5:22 am
February 18th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
If most ID proponents are creationists, as Mike Gene admits, then those ID proponents are all liars because they mostly claim, usually quite vociferously, that they're not creationists (e.g. the Discovery Institute and Of Pandas and People both proclaim this incessantly). Therefore, it is important for their critics to establish the truth and say that they are creationists.
Given that whole debate, which has been running ever since Of Pandas and People in 1989 and is pretty much the core of the national ID movement's entire strategy, Mike Gene protests too much about his own peculiar situation. If he really wants to avoid confusion he should pick a new name for his views, or at least accept the fact that it is the views of "most" ID proponents that define ID, not the views of some idiosyncratic pseudonymous blogger.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 18, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Nickmatzke:
Nick, discussion on this matter cannot even begin without a definition of "creationist". If your definition of "creationist" is one who presumes that science and a particular creation story must match or science is ipso facto in error, then most IDers are not creationists. If, on the other hand, your definition of creationist is anyone who considers the possibility that biodiversity exists because one or more intelligences arranged it that way, well, then all IDers are creationists. So come up with a firm definition of creationist, then see if IDers are inconsistent.
Comment by bFast — February 18, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
"If most ID proponents are creationists, as Mike Gene admits, then those ID proponents are all liars because they mostly claim, usually quite vociferously, that they're not creationists"
As I've commented on UD, I see creationism (literal Bible interpretation) as one of the biggest problems in the ID vs. Darwin debate. I believe that if it weren't for many YEC crazies denying science, more scientists would be open to ID (which, by the way, is not creationism in a cheap tuxedo). I'm something of a faith waffler "“ that is, I bounce back and forth from believing in God to seriously questioning it. I guess I'd have to call myself an agnostic who leans in the direction of God. But that's the beauty of ID; it simply looks at life and deduces design "“ no talk about the "end times", or how old the earth is, or how I'm "wicked" or "stupid" if I doubt Darwin and haven't converted to atheism. ID is based solely on evidence.
Comment by shaner74 — February 18, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
This is a case where you are victimized by your own preconceptions. One can be both a creationist and an IDer. The terms are not mutually exclusive. One can also be a creationist without being an IDer and an IDer without being a creationist. Creationists believe that God created life. The beliefs are grounded in truths believed to have been revealed in a scriptural text etc. IDers are making a claim linked to empirical evidence. David Berlinski can be an IDer without claiming to believe God has an identity. One can even be an evolutionist and a creationist if one believes the creation was the first initial life forms or the conditions which enabled life and then an evolutionary process trook over at that point. Liar is a good term for one who knew all this but ignored it for the sake of a cheap shot.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
——————————Intelligent Design Theorists
——————————————- / ———— \
——————– Supernatural Agents—–Natural Agents
—————————- / — —– \
– Religious Evidence Only—Empirical Evidence
Here's the beginning of a categorization of Intelligent Design Theorists
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Bradford:
Oh, it's worse than that. Matzke starts out with a misrepresentation:
"If most ID proponents are creationists, as Mike Gene admits…"
I seem to be unable to find where Mike "admits" that 'most' ID proponents are creationists. Nick flippantly asserts this misrepresentation and goes from there as if it's a given. In his follow-up response to commentary in this thread, for instance, he says:
"First, I have little patience for Nick's attempt to equate creationism with ID because I am in the privileged position of knowing he is wrong."
After having it explained to him so many times right here on this blog forum, should we call Nick's gazillionth misrepresentation of the distinction a "misunderstanding" or a "lie?"
Comment by Joy — February 18, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Hi Nick,
Is Hoyle a creationist?
Comment by Krauze — February 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
As someone with chronic reading comprehension problems, you'd be well advised not to make the leap so readily from "I am unable to find" to "Nick flippantly asserts this misrepresentation."
Mike's admission occurs in the comment immediately prior to Nick's. Mike wrote:
Do the math. If "many" ID proponents are creationists and a "vocal minority" are evolutionists, then unless he believes there is a third category, Mike is admitting that most ID proponents are creationists.
Comment by keiths — February 18, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Nick Matzke:
If most evolutionary biologist are nontheists, then those evolutionary biologists "are all liars", if they mostly claim (perhaps quite vociferously) the compatibility of theism with the science of evolution (e.g. NSCE proclaim this incessantly)… Therefore, it is important to establish the truth and say that they [all evolutionary biologists] are non-theists?
No. And the same goes with ID and ID-proponents.
Although the most A-proponents were also B-ists, it is not true, that all A-proponents still should be also B-ists.
Ps. Though you love to label people as "creationist", your boss Eugenie Scott has written:
Comment by Analyysi — February 18, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
In terms of the evolution discussion, creationists are those who advocate special creation in biology, even if they sometimes deny or obfuscate that this is what they are doing for political/legal reasons (which is overwhelmingly the case for the ID movement).
Regarding whether or not Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were creationists — I don't know, they themselves entitled their 1981 book Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism. I tend to think they were just confused, like they were confused about Archaeoptryx and superintelligent insects and speciation and extinction and a vast number of other things they were deluded about, but heck, Thaxton & co. in the 1984 Mystery of Life's Origin described Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's view as "Special Creation by a Creator Within the Cosmos."
Apparently what Hoyle and Wickramasinghe had in mind was some kind of Hindu pantheist notion where "God"=the universe. If so, then sure, they were creationists.
PS: Before anyone gets too committed to invoking Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, consider the kind of crankery they produced:
It's not even true that no insect species have gone extinct, and as you can see it gets worse from there.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 18, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Keiths, explain to me how Mike's assertion, even if assumed to be true, is a logical basis upon which the following is reasoned:
If most ID proponents are creationists, as Mike Gene admits, then those ID proponents are all liars because they mostly claim, usually quite vociferously, that they're not creationists (e.g. the Discovery Institute and Of Pandas and People both proclaim this incessantly).
Mike's contention applies to IDers as a whole. A specific subset of IDers is then identified. Mike's logic does not rule in or out the possibility that that subset differs with respect to the whole. More importantly though, of what relevance are the beliefs of DI members concerning God and creation? Is this not an overt, but clumsy, attempt to tarr opponents with emotionally connotative terms? Then again this is a simpler tactic than having to deal with unknown and unidentified scientific causes related to biology. When you do that you reveal that much of natural history is an open question.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Hi Nick,
At no point have I tried to "invoke" Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, so let's put that red herring aside. I'm simply trying to figure out if you consider Hoyle a creationist.
"Apparently what Hoyle and Wickramasinghe had in mind was some kind of Hindu pantheist notion where "God"=the universe. If so, then sure, they were creationists."
But Hoyle also accepted common descent. How does this square with your definition of creationists as "those who advocate special creation in biology"
Comment by Krauze — February 18, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Few creationists advocate a biological case for special creation although they point out problems with standard theories. Some of them do argue that scientific evidence exists for purposeful or intelligent causal factors in the generation and subsequent diversification of life. The political gamesmanship is played by your side which attempts to conflate a religious position with an empirical one.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
So basically, Verhey's study taught students a viewpoint, and then gave a direct, and unrebutted critique of that viewpoint, and then found that many students were persuaded by the latter. Any surprises? He who is given the last word often wins, especially when the last word is a direct name-calling attack.
I responded to some of Nick's attacks on Icons a long time ago. (Of course Nick enlisted many friends to respond to my response). Had Verhey ended the study with an unrebutted response to Nick, would the results have been different?
This study seems to have some serious flaws which make me wonder what is value is.
Comment by Casey Luskin — February 18, 2007 @ 8:12 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
No, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe argued that genes were created in space and are regularly raining down from space, or something. Common ancestry would be genes descending from previous genes (which, conveniently, is something that actually happens).
Comment by nickmatzke — February 18, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
That's silly. Creationists argue for special creation every chance they get. This is what they are doing every time they talk about "discontinuity" or "gaps" or "basic types" or "we accept microevolution, not macroevolution." Heck, Casey Luskin himself, who just joined us, was arguing for the special creation of the human species during the Kitzmiller trial, on the Discovery Institute's very own blog no less. Of course he didn't say special creation, he said "intelligent design." But just look at the figure in that post — he's clearly arguing for the special creation of humans.
(Furthermore, Luskin's objections to the evidence for the common ancestry of apes and humans are consistently pitiful, so he clearly believes in the separate ancestry of humans because his reading of the Bible tells him so in Genesis.)
Comment by nickmatzke — February 18, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hi Nick,
This is irrelevant to my point. I noted "I have little patience for Nick's attempt to equate creationism with ID because I am in the privileged position of knowing he is wrong." One insight that comes from once having been a creationist is the knowledge that creationists universally reject human evolution. Do you disagree?
The debate about design did not begin in 1989. It is a debate that extends back for 1000s of years.
No, what I do is subject the propagandistic and/or stereotypical claims of my opponents to critical thinking. This happens to be one very common example.
This has been answered.
You define a concept not according to its logic, but with survey data? Hmmm. That sounds intellectually lazy. But come to think of it…..I wonder if "most" ID critics are also evangelistic atheists.
Comment by MikeGene — February 18, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
That's silly. Creationists argue for special creation every chance they get. This is what they are doing every time they talk about "discontinuity" or "gaps" or "basic types" or "we accept microevolution, not macroevolution."
Your claim was that "creationists are those who advocate special creation in biology." How does one advocate special creation in a biology? Creationists, by and large, critique existing theories and they do it constantly. Gaps in the fossil record is an example of a criticism. I have not thought of it in terms of a biological case for special creation- if that is what you meant. The- we accept micro and not macro- statement is a commentary on the documentation of observed genetic changes. How is it a biological case for special creation?
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Nick: Casey Luskin himself, who just joined us, was arguing for the special creation of the human species during the Kitzmiller trial, on the Discovery Institute's very own blog no less. Of course he didn't say special creation, he said "intelligent design." But just look at the figure in that post "” he's clearly arguing for the special creation of humans.
From the linked blog:
Nick, there is a pattern to your complaints. You allege that one is arguing for special creation and reference arguments about evidence. Your "real proof" of special creation arguments comes down to citing the religious convictions of those doing the criticizing. But what is good for the goose must apply to the gander. In this case if theistic beliefs on the part of a critic are sufficient to brand a non-theistic argument as special creation then so too are atheist convictions sufficient to render the scientific critique of an atheist proponent as religious, irreligious, unreligious or anything but what they purport to be.
In the end your complaints fail simply because one need not propose an alternative comprehensive theory when examining and criticizing an existing one. Your personal sniping is unworthy of the position you hold.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”Intelligent Design Theorists
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”- / "”"”"”"” \
"”"” Religious Evidence Only"”———-Empirical and other kinds
————-/—————————————of evidence ————
——-YECs (and others?)———————/—————\—–
————————————–Supernatural————-Natural–
—————————————-Agents——————Agents—
—————————————–/—————————–\—-
——————————YECs, OECs,———-Emergent Deities,-
———————–ID Evolutionists, etc.——–ETs, EAM, etc.—–
Sorry for all the dashes, but I don't know how else to maintain the spacing. Does anybody disagree with my diagram?
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Pretty good job Bilbo. I suppose there is some overlapping but it gets the point across. Nick's approach is to act as if all IDers fall within the religious evidence only branch. This helps explain why constructive dialog is difficult.
Comment by Bradford — February 18, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Bilbo:
The ID evolutionist position does not depend on an earlier choice about the nature of the designer.
Comment by MikeGene — February 18, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Good point, Mike. Let me figure out how to fix the diagram.
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”Intelligent Design Theorists
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”- / "”"”"”"” \
"”"” Religious Evidence Only"”"”"”"”-Empirical and other kinds
"”"”"”"”-/"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”of evidence "”"”"”"”
"”"”-YECs (and others?)"”"”"”"”"”"”"”/"”"”"”"”"”\"”"“
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"“Supernatural"”"”"”"”-Natural"“
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”-Agents"”"”"”"”"”"”Agents"”
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"“/"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"“\"”-
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”YECs, OECs,"”"”"”-Emergent Deities,-
"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"“ID Evolutionists, etc."”"”"“ETs, EAM, ID —-
———————————————————-evolutionists, etc.
There. Now you can be in either group.
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Or perhaps we should just have three groups:
Supernatural Agents——-Natural Agents——Undecided
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
That would be better, as I know that my approach is not dependent on choosing between a supernatural vs. natural designer.
Comment by MikeGene — February 18, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
February 18th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Or maybe "Unspecified" instead of "Undecided."
Comment by Bilbo — February 18, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 1:50 am
In other words, Mike Gene's designer might, or might not, have to follow basic physical laws like conservation of mass and energy. That's the great thing about unconstrained hypotheses, you can toss out any piece of science you like at any time.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 19, 2007 @ 1:50 am
February 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am
Yes — Bilbo's classification is just another version of the ID movement's big tent approach, which attempts to minimize the fact that ID was invented as a workaround once creation science was ruled unconstitutional, and that the movement was born and bred within American fundamentalism, and primarily exists to fill in the science section in the apologetics books and sermons of the fundamentalists. The secular-ish construals of ID, pretending that aliens or whatever could be the designers, are simply invoked for tactical reasons to attempt to avoid the creationism/apologetics charge. No one takes the aliens option seriously.
An accurate view would something like:
ID movement leaders:
~25% YEC & Biblical inerrancy
~50% OEC & Biblical inerrancy
~25% creationist, agnostic on the age of the earth & Biblical inerrancy
less than 5% accept common ancestry of apes and humans and go with some vaguer form of supernatural guidance, a strong view of Biblical inspiration but not quite inerrancy
- Plus a few percent (above and beyond the 100%) are not actually ID supporters, but generic cranks who hang out with the ID guys because the ID guys actually pay attention to them, unlike everyone else. E.g. Berlinski, Davison, etc.
ID supporters on the ground:
~50%+ YEC
~remainder OEC or agnostic/confused/haven't thought about it on the age of the earth
~10% who are confused by ID's deliberately vague language and think that "ID" means "theistic evolution" or something similar.
Comment by nickmatzke — February 19, 2007 @ 2:13 am
February 19th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Nick, have you ever read anything authored by Mike containing an analysis that contavened basic laws? I have not and I have read quite a few of his essays, blogs and comments.
Comment by Bradford — February 19, 2007 @ 11:39 am
February 19th, 2007 at 11:44 am
ID was born out of conviction that there exists data in support of purposeful, intelligent design. Nick, you used to argue science but lately you are more intent on painting your opponents with a broad brush.
Comment by Bradford — February 19, 2007 @ 11:44 am
February 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Mikegene:
It shouldn't be difficult to ignore you; after all, to the extent you succeed in disassociating yourself from the great mass of creationists, the more irrelevant you become. Its really kind of funny to think that a book published by an anonymous internet blogger about his hobby which even he says isn't science is going to make any serious person think of you as more than a curiosity. The DI only matters because it promotes the creationist agenda; you only matter to the extent you help provide, wittingly or not, pseudo-scientific camoflauge for the DI's ID Creationism (its not creationism; MikeGene accepts common descent and an old earth!). I hope you're not starting to take your hobby too seriously, Mike!
Comment by Aagcobb — February 19, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
It shouldn't be difficult to ignore you; after all, to the extent you succeed in disassociating yourself from the great mass of creationists, the more irrelevant you become.
Why would that be?
Its really kind of funny to think that a book published by an anonymous internet blogger about his hobby which even he says isn't science is going to make any serious person think of you as more than a curiosity.
If you are interested in the truth the identity of the author is not important.
The DI only matters because it promotes the creationist agenda; you only matter to the extent you help provide, wittingly or not, pseudo-scientific camoflauge for the DI's ID Creationism (its not creationism; MikeGene accepts common descent and an old earth!).
The DI matters because its empircial claims resonate with many. The pseudo-nonsense is in evidence every time a contentless comment focuses on people rather than issues.
Comment by Bradford — February 19, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Aagcobb:
Of course not, Aag! We should leave the 'serious' NDE vs. ID to lawyers, such as yourself.
Comment by Joy — February 19, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Hi Bradford,
[creationists]. Really, how many serious people who think life was designed by space aliens do you think there are? IDism is a tail being wagged by a very large creationist dog.
Comment by Aagcobb — February 19, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hi Joy!
And Phillip Johnson!!
Comment by Aagcobb — February 19, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
[creationists]. Really, how many serious people who think life was designed by space aliens do you think there are? IDism is a tail being wagged by a very large creationist dog.
This typifies the thoughtless nature of your responses.
Comment by Bradford — February 19, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Nick:
You mean, no one besides Hoyle.
Comment by Bilbo — February 19, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Even if anyone took Hoyle seriously, Hoyle & Wickramasinghe seemed to be going for a kind of cosmic intelligence making up the universe, kind of a Hindu/pantheistic view. This is a long ways from your standard LGM aliens.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 19, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
The "standard LGM aliens" is what SETI is looking for. Apparently, the LGM aliens can only possibly communicate, as something like biotech and space travel must forever be beyond their reach.
Comment by MikeGene — February 19, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
Maybe it's just me, but there is a certain irony in having you claim that it shouldn't be difficult to ignore me.
Indeed! In fact, it's weirder than this. The DM is not published by a mainstream publisher, has no back-cover endorsements, and no forward. Furthermore, the acknowledgements come with no list of experts who reviewed the book and offered constructive feedback. Put simply, the book has been designed such that it is stripped down to the bones and the cards are stacked against it. It has been set-up to quickly dissipate into total obscurity. It's up to you, and others like you, to ignore it and ensure this.
There is only one little glimmer of hope for the little thing "“ the strength and appeal of its arguments. What "serious people" think of me doesn't matter, just as they don't matter to me. What will matter is whether the arguments can stand and grow. It is up to the arguments, and not me, to carry the book forward. It's up to you, and others like you, to ignore them.
Of course, when you read the book, you will see that what "serious people" think of me really never mattered. The book does not tell you what to think nor does it declare how things are. It shouts no revolution nor sounds any alarm bells. There is no call to action nor any thing that begs for attention. Like you say, who cares what "an anonymous internet blogger" thinks? The book simply invites the reader to explore from a different angle, highlighting different ways of approaching things, interpreting things, and ways to move beyond the suspicions. The book is a journey, the start of a journey, not a proclamation. It's up to you, and others like you, to stay home.
Comment by MikeGene — February 19, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
February 19th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Nick:
The difference is striking. Nick views Bilbo through the prism of the ID movement, such that Bilbo is transformed into "just another version" of the movement. I view Bilbo as a fellow human being, someone who, like me, recognizes the diversity of views that are associated with ID. And our recognition comes from experience.
They say people are either splitters or lumpers. Given his position, it is not surprising that Nick is a Lumper. At the ARN forum, he saw the same person in mturner and Douglas; here he sees the same person in Krauze and Salvador. If you close your eyelids far enough, vision becomes fuzzy, and lumping is assured.
Yet Bilbo sees the distinctions, the different points of emphasis, even the different background beliefs. For him, the simple "ID = Creationism" is just that "“ too simple. So he explores.
It's hard to minimize a point that is minimal, especially when the trivia is miscast.
I think all humans have a tendency to read "design" into the world. But one the advantages I have is that I can take this tendency and funnel it through The DM, trying to control and test this tendency, always cognizant that I may be seeing something that is not there. Nick, because he so strongly denies design, is left off-guard in areas outside the guard post. Thus, while Nature is exorcised of all design, his human tendency seeks an outlet elsewhere – his fellow humans are viewed in conspiratorial terms. Like a special creationist, Nick thinks ID was "invented" (poofed!) into existence solely because of a court ruling. It was all a very intelligent design. Like a special creationist, he doesn't see or acknowledge the decades of conceptual evolution sparked by a string of molecular symbols, nor does he see the conceptual precursor states that are strewn about everywhere. Nope, ID was "invented" like a PR parlor trick.
Nick fails to define "fundamentalism," but he surely must cast a wide net. Nick is quick to point out the religious background of many ID people, yet he forgets that it is this very background that allows people to view any attempt to lump Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and Wells as "fundamentalists" with much skepticism.
Yet all of this means nothing. Even if his point is valid, it's nothing more than old news. As such, it might be useful for the new edition of Trivia Pursuit, but it fails to explain where we are today and how we got here. Y'see, even if the movement "was born and bred within American fundamentalism," it has long broken out of that mold. Nick can't see this because seeing this is part of his job description. He hasn't yet figured out that the "fundamentalists" can't go back and claim ID for "fundamentalism" because it was/is their very arguments that cut the umbilical cord.
Here we have the either/or thinking. Nick seems to think the "secular-ish construals" are either valid or a tactical ploy. But why in the world can't it be both? If anything, the best tactic is to use a valid, logical argument. Nick can't wave away the logic of ID because people with a socio-political agenda figured out how to exploit it for their own tactical purposes.
Look, it's easy to the turn the tables on Nick. He and the NCSE champion the neutral-ish construals of ID criticism, a form of criticism that makes no judgment about the existence of God or truth of religion. Is the neutral-ish construal a tactical decision on the part of Nick and his political organization? Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and an army of type C critics shout, "YES!" Nick's allies have outed his tactics. But so what? What matters is whether Nick's neutral-ish position is valid. I happen to think it is. That he uses it as a tactic is irrelevant to this insight.
Thus, while Nick takes my position and dismisses it as a disingenuous tactic, I see his tactic but acknowledge the validity of his position. And while I split people like Nick and Eugenie away from the New Atheist Movement, Nick continues to insist that we are all lumped together as puppets in the ID Movement. Readers are invited to ponder the differences.
There it is.
Here Nick is talking about"¦..us. So y'see, we're either Creationists or Confused. Surprise, surprise. Most ID critics come to the table with their stereotypes firmly in place, believing that all ID proponents are either stupid (confused); deluded (confused); and/or dishonest. The purpose of coming to the table is then twofold: a) Defeat The Enemy and b) Confirm the Stereotype.
All else follows.
Comment by MikeGene — February 19, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Hi MikeGene,
OK, I admit it: I have an addiction to internet message boards. Someone stop me before I post again!
Comment by Aagcobb — February 20, 2007 @ 10:49 am
February 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Hi Nick,
"Hoyle & Wickramasinghe argued that genes were created in space and are regularly raining down from space, or something. Common ancestry would be genes descending from previous genes (which, conveniently, is something that actually happens)."
Hoyle's scenario is really just an elaborate form of panspermia. Are you saying that if it turned out to be true, science would have to conclude that the creationists were right all along?
Comment by Krauze — February 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I have to admit that these discussions are invaluable for the entertainment value alone. (And I say that while admitting that I find the Three Stooges entertaining.) But someone, namely Nick Matzke, (the same?) Public Information Project Director of something called National Center for Science Education, refers to Fred Hoyle as a "crank" and seems to doubt that "anyone" takes him "seriously." Needless to say, Hoyle is one of the most respected theoretical physicists of the 20th century due to his (and his collaborators) many, original, and significant contributions to our understanding of the evolution of the universe.
Obviously, if I were to summarily (i.e., stupidly) dismiss scientists work because of their "crank" ideas, then I might as well dismiss all science, because scientists are like everyone else, they all have "crank" theories, oddball ideas, and strange beliefs.
Nick Matzke? Friend and defender of science, gatekeeper of public education? Or "crank"? Does anyone (other than Mike Gene) take Nick Matzke seriously?
(I'm picturing Nick Matzke sulking in the back row of one of theose creationst filled remedial education classes.)
Comment by Rock — February 20, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Rock,
For Nick to label Hoyle a "crank" is not to deny Hoyle's significant contributions to science. But Hoyle meets the definition of crank many times over. Look at his stubborn adherence to the Steady State theory, long after the evidence for the Big Bang had become overwhelming. Look at his belief that Archaeopteryx was a hoax. Look at his naive "tornado in a junkyard" metaphor. Or his belief that human nostrils point down, rather than up, so that they will not collect the influenza viruses raining down from space.
Hoyle, Pauling, Shockley, Penrose — great scientists all, but we don't take Hoyle seriously on creation, Pauling on vitamin C, Shockley on race, or Penrose on consciousness.
Comment by keiths — February 20, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
You just told me, kieths, that Hoyle is both a "crank many times over" and that he has made "significant contributions to science." I said that, didn't I?
Nick Matzke can speak for himself.
Comment by Rock — February 20, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Rock,
If you acknowledge that Hoyle is a crank, then why get so exercised when Nick labels him as such?
Comment by keiths — February 20, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
…and why his "tornado in a junkyard" metaphor is naive?
Please show us a scientific research that exposes naiveness of his metaphor. Unless you can show a fully naturalistic pathway from raw organic materials to a living cell, his famous metaphor will remain unchallenged.
Comment by Farshad — February 20, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
This takes me back to the old ARN days. Anyone that is sympathetic towards ID is supporting the evil creationists. Remember those discusiions Mike?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — February 20, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
February 20th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
We don't even know all the details on how actual tornados form — shall we invoke a supernatural intelligence there, also?
The problem with Hoyle's tornado metaphor is that it applies only to all-at-once assembly by-complete-blind-luck, which is nothing like any actual evolutionary model.
Go read Cavalier-Smith if you want to get vaguely serious about real models for the origin of life.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 20, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
February 21st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
No one claims that there are no models for the OOL. A simple search in PubMed returns more than 1000 results in related fields. The problem is that the bottom-up approach still can not tell how a S/R can evolve to a point that we can call it a minimum life cell. Considering the fact that minimal genome that is needed for maintaining life can not be less than 400 genes. One may object that minimum genes needed in a prebiotic environment need not to be 400 and a we can have life(?) with even fewer number of genes, but where is the proof? Having it published on PubMed doesn't make a hypothetical model empirically approved. Many hypotheses for Origin of Life have been proposed through years, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion.
Comment by Farshad — February 21, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
February 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Hmmm….I hadn't been back to this thread since I first posted. I made one a comment which was on the topic of this thread, but then Nick Matzke of the NCSE immediately starts talking about something irrelevant–asserting I support "special creation" of humans and apes and then purporting to tell people about my personal religious views. Why did Nick do that? It's because the NCSE has an "always-bring-it-back-to-religion-but-don't-talk-about-the-real-issues" strategy. For the lurkers watching, Nick 's behavior should tell you something.
Nick wrote: "Luskin's objections to the evidence for the common ancestry of apes and humans are consistently pitiful." I'll repeat something for the group I wrote to Nick in an e-mail a while back:
"Come on Nick, why do we have to use invectives here? We can be friendly and just use arguments."
It's saddening that Nick has to behave like this, as Nick then wrote: "he clearly believes in the separate ancestry of humans because his reading of the Bible tells him so in Genesis"
Actually, the truth is that in 2005, Nick made similar false claims when he purported to represent my viewpoint, and I responded to them on the IDEA Center website at http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1364. In this response to Nick, I wrote:
"I don't believe that it is impossible for one to believe in Neo-Darwinism and be a Christian"
and
"Nick seems to be operating under the assumption that scientific theories which operate under naturalistic assumptions pose a threat to my Christian belief system. He seems to assume that neo-Darwinism, if true, poses a threat to my Christian faith. This is another completely wrong assumption on the part of Nick. Neo-Darwinian evolution poses no threat to me being a Christian whatsoever. God could have created however He wanted to do so, and could have used Neo-Darwinian evolution if that's what He wanted to do."
You should all read that page if you have time–it's very revealing to show how Nick purports to represent what people believe, and then fails to retract it even when he knows it is false.
Yes, I'm a Christian, but I don't believe that Genesis disbars the possibility that humans share might common ancestry with other species. Genesis is not relevant to this discussion, because I think that the data give me no compelling reason to accept human common ancestry with apes. I base my views upon the fossil evidence, and the lack of conclusive and compelling arguments from the molecular data.
Nick, why do you treat me like this and misrepresent my position? I argue using evidence and you respond by claiming that I'm wedded to some particular interpretation of Genesis where humans cannot share common ancestry with apes. Your immediate statement of false claims makes it clear that you have some deep, internal dislike of me. Am I correct?
Comment by Casey Luskin — February 25, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
February 26th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Hi Casey,
On another thread Nick said that he wont be back fo ra week so you may need to rattle his chain when he gets back.
Good question. Although I used to post over at ARN I sort of took a sabbatical of intenet posting for about a year and decided to take a look at Mikes site. Here at teic thoughts I have had the opportunity for the first time to observe posts from Nick. Frankly I expected more and was dissapointed to find that Nick makes a living by denigrating anyone who has sympathy for the ID position. You would think we could have a civil discussion alas that does not seem to be in the cards.
Your an ID person so you are ignorant , stupid, dishonest, have ulterior motives, you want to usher in a theocracy, blah , blah blah. Now that type of rhetoric is reserved for the run of the mill ID sympathiser. However I take it your a little more high profile in the ID world so you get special attention. Besides being ignorant etc your positions also have to be demonized and fabricated as well even when you try to put the record straight. You see anything you say to Nick is nothing but a subterfuge. You say NDE poses no threat to your faith but to Nick that is nothing more than spin in order to cloak your real objective which is to institute a tyrannical theocracy on others.
I would also say Casey that you need to take the blinders off. You think you can reason with these people so you try and the you are dissapointed because these people are supposed to be all about reason and rationality then you try again likeyou are doing this time. Dont waste your breath Nick cares less about accurately portraying you nor is he interested in any reasonable discussion. To engage in reasonable discussion with an ID person is to give the the credibility they do not deserve. Remember no ammunition allowed to anyone who does not agree with Darwinian dogmatism.
No I suspect Nick does not like you but dont take it personal..thats his problem not yours.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — February 26, 2007 @ 12:25 am