The Birth of Intelligent Design
by MikeGeneA new urban legend has sprung up and taken root. According to this legend, the concept of Intelligent Design was invented in 1987, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that teaching creation science was unconstitutional. Ken Miller told this tale in his recent presentation, likening it to a shrewd marketing technique. What gives the tale traction is the analysis of the textbook, Pandas and People. As bipod explained, "As evidence that intelligent design is nothing but creationism, they point to some early drafts of Pandas and People that contained creationist wording rather than intelligent design wording. Those are facts. What's the interpretation? Of course, it must mean that intelligent design is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. We all knew that already, now didn't we?" Bipod also lays out a potent critique of this interpretation and I shed some more light here. Nevertheless, since the tale is too juicy and useful, we should expect it to persist as long as ID is primarily expressed in socio-political terms.
Yet my experience with hundreds of critics over the years has taught me that stereotypes, clichés, and conspiracy theories are recurrent themes among their complaints about ID (which is understandable, given that it is purely the politics that attracts most critics to this issue). Since the "marketing technique" explanation has the same level of intellectual sophistication as these other themes, might it just be another example of such an approach?
I did a little (albeit, limited) digging and have come up with another hypothesis that accounts for the shift in terminology and also better accounts for the "true beginnings" of intelligent design and its continued development.
As I have argued before, design is a concept/explanation that has been around since the Greek philosophers. An astonishing example of such thinking comes from Marcus Cicero (106-43 BC). Cicero would write something that sounds oddly familiar:
Can I but wonder here that anyone can persuade himself that certain solid and individual bodies should be moved by their natural forces and gravitation in such a manner that a world so beautiful adorned should be made by fortuitous concourse. He who believes this possible may as well believe, that if a great quantity of the one and twenty letters, composed of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the "˜Annals of Ennius'. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them.
What's striking here is the expression of teleological thinking to explain the origin of a sequence of symbols. This argument would remain latent in the realm of vague analogy, but when scientists began to establish and characterize DNA and proteins as a sequence of symbols, it should surprise no one that teleologists would return to it.
One such person was Hubert Yockey , who initiated methods that used sequence analysis to measure the information content of proteins in the 1970s. While Yockey was not a creationist, many of his arguments would resonate among creationists, as evidenced by Duane Gish citing such work in one of his debates from 1988.
The pivotal point for ID then came in 1984, when Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen published their book, The Mystery of Life's Origins: Reassessing Current Theories. Since the book was not poofed into existence, the ideas contained within must have been developed in the early 80s.
Thaxton et al.'s book was significant for many reasons. First, it was not a typical "˜creationist' book coming from the Institute of Creation Research. On the contrary, the book received praise from Robert Shapiro and Robert Jastrow. Second, the book did not deal with evolution or its mechanism, but instead focused entirely on abiogenesis. Third, the authors were clearly influenced by Yockey: "As was pointed out, Yockey has noted that negative thermodynamic entropy (thermal) has nothing to do with information, and no amount of energy flow through the system and negative thermal entropy generation can produce even a small amount of information." (p. 183)
The Epilogue of Mystery is the most significant, as Thaxton et al. are clearly moving in the direction of ID as a response to abiogenesis. In this chapter, we find the other influence on the birth of ID: "Hoyle and Wickramasinghe argue that the evidence is overwhelming that intelligence provided the information and produced life." (p. 197) Hoyle's stuff was published in the late 70s and early 80s. This is a theme Thaxton et al. would repeat several times in the Epilogue:
If an Intelligent Creator produced the first life, then it may well be true that this observed boundary in the laboratory is real, and will persist independent of experimental progress or new discoveries about natural processes. Also an intelligent Creator could conceivably accomplish the quite considerable configurational entropy work necessary to build informational macromolecules and construct true cells. (p. 210)
and
The failure to identify such a contemporary abiotic cause of specified complexity is yet another way to support our conclusions that chemical evolution is an implausible hypothesis. (p. 211)
and
True, our knowledge of intelligence has been restricted to biology-based advanced organisms, but it is currently argued by some that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. If our minds are capable of imagining intelligence freed from biology in this sense, then who not in the sense of an intelligence being before biological life existed?
One year later, an even more influential book was published "“ Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It's easy to view Denton's book as the crucial half-way point between creationism and intelligent design. Like Thaxton et al, Denton was not a member of the ICR. Yet he presented a typological view of life that played extremely well among the creationists. But more significant, in my mind, is another chapter near the end of the book, one entitled, "The Puzzle of Perfection." In this chapter, Denton turns to the issue of design and includes a section that is almost poetic and inspiring. He writes, "Aside from any quantitative considerations, it seems intuitively impossible that such self-evident brilliance in the execution of design could have ever been the result of chance." (p. 327) Denton then takes his readers on a walk-through of the cell, writing, "We wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around is, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines"¦.We wonder even more as we watch the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine "“ that is one single functional protein module "“ would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century." (p.328-9) [As an aside, I just noted that it was Denton who introduced the term "˜molecular machine' in 1985.]
Then comes 1986, where Robert Shapiro publishes, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Although this book runs independently of the ID stream, it's a powerful book that appears to confirm much of Thaxton et al.'s book.
Anyway, from here we know that Denton's book influenced Behe, Thaxton's book influenced Kenyon, and that Thaxton, Kenyon, and Behe worked on Pandas.
So there seems to be a more accurate, although less sensational, explanation for the birth of ID. In the 1950s, researchers such as Sanger, Watson, and Crick brought sequence to the center stage of molecular biology. In the 1960s, the genetic code was worked out and Michael Polanyi began to explore the implications of such things. In the 1970s, Hubert Yockey would consider sequence and begin to make arguments that would resonate among the creationists. Such resonance was then amplified by Fred Hoyle in the late 70s and early 80s. Along came Thaxton et al's book in 1984, providing a powerful critique of abiogenesis and ends with tantalizing ideas about intelligence, specified complexity, and design. A year later, 1985, Michael Denton puts Darwin in the cross-hairs and ends his book with an inspiring section on design. In 1986, abiogenesis researcher Robert Shapiro gives abiogenesis a stinging criticism. The arguments from Hoyle, Thaxton et al., Denton, and Shapiro were all laid out from 1978-1986 and it's safe to say that the authors of Pandas, Thaxton and Kenyon, were well immersed in them.
Along comes 1987 and the Supreme Court ruling. Since creationism is deemed unconstitutional, two things probably occurred. The change in terminology from "˜creationism' to "˜intelligent design' was catalyzed by this decision, as the authors/publishers did not want all their work tossed into the trash bin. Second, there was a clear overlap between creationism and this new, emerging ID argument, although they were not the same. The overlap, in turn, is a function of two dynamics.
Since the death of vitalism, creationism remained the most popular expression of teleological thinking. Thus, when science made it clear that life was sequentially encoded, the return to Cicero's teleological argument would likely have been picked up by the creationists. Second, the mass influence of Michael Denton's book among creationists, which emphasized a critique of Darwinian evolution, yet offered provocative speculations about design, would work to couple design and creationism in those early days.
So there is no reason to invoke any form of marketing or political conspiracy. The authors of Pandas had begun to sincerely express a new argument, that while loosely fitting within the creationist context, was never dependent on such a context. Since 1987, intelligent design has continued to develop and I have already spelled this out . Both Behe and Dembski have contributed essential steps in developing intelligent design into a serious method to explore nature. And today, as you can see from this blog, there are ID evolutionists. Who knows what the future may hold?
January 28th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
That's a nice summary, but I would add that even if ID was birthed as a result of the court decision, that would be OK too, as it seems that the only official peer review of creation and design theories come from the courts.
Is it true that Denton changed or at least moderated his position since he authored "…Crisis?" I really appreciated that book and learned alot about biology that was never really presented in class and in other forums.
Comment by David — January 28, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Interesting hypothesis Mike, and a good attempt at de-sensationalizing.
So this means that you also identify a correlation between the two and that Miller is not entirely wrong about 'creationism' and 'intelligent design'? It's the 'shrewd marketing technique' idea it seems that you're against, not the notion of ID's conceptualization in 1987.
~
It may be helpful here to raise the issue of Aristotle's four causes, since the idea of final cause being dropped from science has been spoken about by the IDM also. Others who don't/wouldn't subscribe to the implications of big D design or big I intelligence had already suggested that efficient cause became the driving force of modern science. By focussing on formal and final causes instead of material and efficient causes, theories of i+d have carved (are carving) an interesting niche in certain fields.
Above it was noticed that, though not in the 'ID stream,' some authors still make 'arguments that would resonate among the creationists.' I would add Mike Gene to this category as far as he appreciates teleological thinking. Most of the ID leaders claim their theory has implications for theism and not only for science. I thus find it difficult to fathom that Mike is not a closet theist, or someone who knows (or believes) that the intelligence inferred by ID is in fact Intelligence of a not-impersonal Kind.
"Robert Shapiro gives abiogenesis a stinging criticism." But Mike Gene has a different sort of sweet hunch about how things came into existence. It wasn't entirely materialistic folks - it's time to be inspied by (agnostic or gnostic) ID!
Another keeper!
Mike and perhaps others at TT's consider themselves 'ID evolutionists.' I wonder then whether there are also 'evolutionary IDists', who place their priority on the big I and the big D instead of on the litte e of evolution. Perhaps an 'evolutionary IDist' is what Behe should be called, and even those parts of Dembski where he accepts evolutionary theories? It only seems to make sense given that ID and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Dissent from Darwin is the main ID motto.
That returns us to the topic title. ID was not born, it was made. The next step might be to wonder who made it. Mike has done a good job in the above article, though without mentioning the so-called 'father of the IDM,' Phillip Johnson, to show us who made ID. Whether or not "developing intelligent design into a serious method to explore nature" has succeeded is not the point. Mike Gene's version of ID is apparently a self-made branch version that uses the ideas 'discovered' by other scientists, philosophers and/or theologians.
Even earlier than the Greeks, one might look to King Solomon for some telic thoughts:
"The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned:
but time and chance happen to them all." (Eccles 9: 11)
~~
Comment by g arago — January 28, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
David,
In 1998, Denton published Nature's Destiny, a book that is completely different from his 1985 book. In the new book, Denton embraces evolution and argues for the biocentric fine-tuning of the Universe. I would suggest that this new book influenced Simon Conway-Morris, making Denton the #1 player in the ID-related stuff.
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
January 28th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Hello g arago,
As bipod said, the word changes are facts. What comes after the facts are the interpretations. Miller gets the facts right, but his interpretation is superficial and stems from his politicking and thus inability to approach this issue objectively. Whether there are a political dimension to ID by 1987 is irrelevant. Miller and others would have no show that there was only a political dimension and cannot do this.
As for ID being made, and not born, are you capable of distinguishing the concept of ID from the IDM?
Comment by MikeGene — January 28, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 12:33 am
I have read both Crisis and Nature's Destiny, and I do not see a big change.
Basically, I am in awe of Denton. Both books are profound.
What difference do you see, Mike?
Comment by onething — January 29, 2006 @ 12:33 am
January 29th, 2006 at 12:36 am
Those interested in this topic can find more information here:
http://tinyurl.com/algjs
A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design by Jonathan Witt, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute
Comment by Jack — January 29, 2006 @ 12:36 am
January 29th, 2006 at 2:00 am
Hi Mike,
Can I ask a question?
You say that the authors of Pandas "had begun to sincerely express a new argument." Do new scientific arguments typically get expressed in textbooks aimed at public school ninth-grade biology classrooms? Why do you think they might have done that?
Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 29, 2006 @ 2:00 am
January 29th, 2006 at 2:08 am
And a short question for you:
Why did we never hear Witt's version of ID's history, from the Discovery Institute or anyone else, until Barbara Forrest was about to testify in the Dover trial?
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 29, 2006 @ 2:08 am
January 29th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Yes, Michael Gene, I am 'capable' of distinguishing between ID and the IDM, though you have never yet answered any questions I've put to you about your own capabilities and educational background. Apparently I am not as shy to disclose as you are. "I think I can, I think I can," said the little train that could.
'This thread is not about me' is your standard response to personal questions or observations made to you or about you, which is rather disingenuous for someone who claims to be interested in the sociological significance of ID. Not that I mind your dancing, but the avoidance of open self-reflexivity has become somewhat boring. You appear to have become a political animal yourself regarding ID more than being an actual scientist with a rigorous (or testable) theory of ID (oh, wait, you don't think ID is even a 'theory'!). The documentation history of ID in this thread is something new in your (anti-hundreds of critics) self-criticism.
'Set design,' 'costume design,' 'graphic design,' 'interior design,' etc. These things are already a reality that no-one is arguing about. Though they have nothing to do with 'origins of life' (OoL) or Intelligence (big I) or human meaning and purpose or even T(h)e(l)ology. It remains true that 'intelligent design' is a rather peculiar animal of theory that is trying to establish itself as 'scientific,' even as Bill Dembski says ID is (already) a scientific (revolutionary) discipline. Peculiar things are indeed happening in this arena in the U.S.A., though Mike Gene's birth and developmental history inevitably display their own 'subjectivity'.
I've read the rhetoric too, Mike G, though formal training in social movements does help one to analyze these things from a professional rather than an amateur standpoint. Gene's superficial sociology is readily apparent, while he claims i+d is not scientific and should not be taught in schools. Who can connect these dots of such a hardcore ID supporter?
It is indeed rather hard to distinguish: ID couldn't exist without the IDM or the IDM couldn't exist without ID? Maybe it's just circular reasoning. The ring-leaders of TT's, though on-board with the IDM's teleological wishes, are otherwise outside of the conception/perception that the main figures promoting ID maintain. It may lead an observer to wonder if TT's helps to promote mainstream ID (and creatonism) or instead if it wants to promote its own particular form of anti-theistic ID evolutionism.
Arago
Comment by g arago — January 29, 2006 @ 9:31 am
January 29th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I just sigged the Krauze quote (on Christian Forums) as I am an agnostic intelligent design evolutionist too who could discern a sense of purpose from nature. I also put "St. Robert Shapiro, the patron saint of skepticism, pray for us!" Hmm…I also like Robert Shapiro as he is able to respond to my two e-mails in about a day as he is a busy man.
I also liked how you mentioned Thaxton et al. as they a book which critiqued abiogenesis not the theory of evolution inspired ID. Also you mentioned it had the benison of Robert Shapiro. Like you said, this book was confirmed by Origins: a Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Personally, I do not participate in the creation/evolution that much as my current interest is abiogenesis and for example, most of the posters at CF are rebutting creationism and there is little mention of abiogenesis in the "debates." Before being interested in the origin of life, I thought the RNA World was "gospel truth" that was extremely tenable and I thought RNA was this godly molecule that could replicate in a facile manner. Of course, I was egregiously wrong.
Hmm…I could understand some of the reasons why Mike Gene does not want ID to be taught in public schools. For example, Mike Gene argues against the non-teleological origin of the flagella. If this was taught in public schools, students might get the impression that evolution was a weak theory unable to explain the origin of all species, thus this might make them receptive to creationism. Of course, evolution is a strong theory and even Michael Denton accepts it (although, he simply challenges non-teleological evolution which is what I do too.) Evolution does explain the origin of Homo sapiens from other primates and the bacterial flagella is not a falsification of that. In addition, Mike Gene's views have a metaphysical facet (teleology) and metaphysics is not science, thus they should not be taught in science classes. As for ID and science class, critical commentary on various origin of life hypotheses should be encourgaed. And as many non-teleological evolutionist say: origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, so I could not percieve why would anyone to opposed to this.
Comment by Arik Soong — January 29, 2006 @ 11:11 am
January 29th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Add this to the previous post: to the first paragraph after the quote…"although Shapiro is not a Catholic or even a Christian as he is an agnostic. "
Finally add: "is Jack who posted here Jack (of ARN) as mentioned here: http://pharyngula.org/index/sc... or a different Jack?"
Comment by Arik Soong — January 29, 2006 @ 11:15 am
January 29th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
g. arago,
"It is indeed rather hard to distinguish: ID couldn't exist without the IDM or the IDM couldn't exist without ID? Maybe it's just circular reasoning. The ring-leaders of TT's, though on-board with the IDM's teleological wishes, are otherwise outside of the conception/perception that the main figures promoting ID maintain. It may lead an observer to wonder if TT's helps to promote mainstream ID (and creatonism) or instead if it wants to promote its own particular form of anti-theistic ID evolutionism."
Maybe it just wants to promote the idea of detecting, or trying to detect, design, particularly in Nature. There are atheists and theists who are Evolutionists, and who are united in decrying "Intelligent Design", right? Yet no one questions whether those atheists are trying to "promote" theism, or whether those theists are trying to promote "atheism". Is this a double-standard, or double-vision, or am I just not understanding why the two cases (discerning motives or promotional intent among IDists, and also among Evolutionists) are not comparable?
Comment by Douglas — January 29, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Arago:
You are a little confused here. The social commentary focuses on the implications of the anti-ID claims. When a mainstream scientist, speaking to other scientists, teaches that ID was an idea crafted solely for sneaky, political reasons, what effect does this have on the investigation of ID? For some reason, that is a topic professionals won't approach.
So I am a boring guy. You want to know my own "capabilities and educational background." Yet I have already addressed this:
Is the something wrong with my position?
Hogwash. As I have explained before, when people use conspiracy theories and stereotypes to construct a social reality that is effectively hostile to me, I am not being a political animal in highlighting this and setting the record straight. It's called self-defense.
Indeed. As I have explained before, my views about ID are an internet-hobby that began by observing the way those on the internet reacted to Behe's book. Since the critics have recently been peddling a legend that is supported by a nifty graphic, I was motivated to go back and take a deeper look.
Nevertheless, I'd say it is a more accurate account that the simple-minded "trojan horse" conspiracy theory. And I will note that you didn't dispute anything.
Thanks to the people like Ken Miller, someone might think my ID views have something to do with a Supreme Court ruling. My views may be that of an amateur, but if your professional views are closely tied to Miller's tale, that doesn't speak well of professionalism.
I've spelled out my ID views here and here . As for you, "IDM" seems to be whatever you want it to be.
You are not an "observer," g arago. You are a participant with his own biases. If professionals like to look at social movements from a professional standpoint, why don't they look in the mirror when they become part of the social story?
TT is just a bunch of people who found each other on the internet expressing their thoughts about these issues. We have no preconceived position to promote (other than this ). And there is no mission statement to sign. No school boards to speak to. No religious tracts to hand out. Yet our existence troubles some. Figure on that.
Comment by MikeGene — January 29, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Hi Arik,
Yes, the Jack who posts here is also "Jack" at ARN.
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Arik,
For some time now, I have rooted intelligent intervention at the origin of life and explored the implications of this hypothesis. I have also consistently contrasted ID with abiogenesis research. Yet I was always willing to view this as "MikeGene ID." Thanks to the provocation from the critics, a key point has now come into focus. "MikeGene ID" is awfully close to classic ID as it began to emerge. Thaxton et al. clearly lay out ID as it relates to the origin of life and say nothing about evolution or its mechanisms. Of course, the idea doesn't get time to simmer and gel, as one year later, Denton's more influential book comes out entitled, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis."
As for not teaching ID in schools, my position has been simple and based on principle "“ we teach science in science classrooms and ID is not recognized as science by the scientific community (science is what scientists do). But I really liked your commentary, as you make a good point here "“ "For example, Mike Gene argues against the non-teleological origin of the flagella. If this was taught in public schools, students might get the impression that evolution was a weak theory unable to explain the origin of all species, thus this might make them receptive to creationism."
Yes, a lot of people, from both sides of the aisle may view a non-evolutionary origin of the flagellum (or something like it) as an anti-evolutionary position. But this is mistaken. If the original cells were endowed with flagella (or front-loaded to unfold flagella), the hypothesis sets itself up against conventional views of abiogenesis (sloppy, self-replicating molecules in a soup) and not evolution.
Critics are all over the board on this one. Some don't think we should even teach about abiogenesis. Some think it is distinct from evolution, while others argue its all part of the same story.
Comment by MikeGene — January 29, 2006 @ 1:04 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
The article from Witt is great. I did not know of this article, yet I reached essentially the same conclusion. Which is not surprising - Watson/Crick, Yockey, Hoyle, Mysteries, Denton, and Shapiro, are all part of documented history.
Comment by MikeGene — January 29, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Douglas:
Since it has become clear that life is a cybernetic construct of molecular machines that are conventionally encoded, the critics have three options.
1. Explain why those who tentatively infer design are wrong.
2. Explain why we all must attribute life to geochemistry.
3. Attack the motives of those who tentatively infer design.
If you were a critic, what option would you choose? And if there is a socio-political movement associated with design, which option causes the fruit to hang even lower?
Comment by MikeGene — January 29, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Hi Krauze.
Is Jack still on the short list like you (and possibly me are)? From what I do know about the others, DNAunion is not sympathetic to ID anymore and he now hates Christianity with a passion which is apparent in his posts at http://www.4forums.com as DamEtel. I do not know about Nelson Alonso as he does not seem to active on the internet anymore.
Comment by Arik Soong — January 29, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Hi Arik,
Jack is still sympathetic to intelligent design, as is Nelson. Of course, to "Wad of ID", anyone who thinks that Mike Gene is anything but a dangerous idiot is a "Mike Gene worshipper".
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
On the previous post I am not implying that Krauze worships Mike Gene or is a sycophant but rather he accepts "Mike Gene ID."
Comment by Arik Soong — January 29, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
January 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Hi Arik,
Perhaps it would be better to say that I accept "Krauze ID", which is closely related to "Mike Gene ID". I certainly wouldn't want to be tied down to defend every past, present, and future claim about ID from Mike.
Comment by Krauze — January 29, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Mike Gene, are you really arguing here that creationism and "creation science" are indeed the origins of intelligent design? Isn't that contrary to the defense arguments in Dover?
Also, to clarify Yockey's position:
Quoting from the Cornell Sun: 3/09/05
Hannah,
My father's work does not support "Intelligent Design."
Please do not confuse the study of the origin of life with the study of evolution. The quote you used concerns the origin of life. My father's work applying information theory and coding theory to the origin of life shows that science must take the origin of life as an axiom, that is, a principle that we know is true but which we cannot prove. The reason for this is that coding theory shows we cannot know from the 20-letter alphabet of amino acids which letter of the 64-letter alphabet of codons specified the amino acid in a protein sequence. For example, if you roll two dice and only know that you rolled a "seven," there is no way for you to know whether your seven resulted from 6+1, 1+6, 5+2, 2+5, 4+3, or 3+4. Knowing the result of "seven" in this case is like knowing which amino acid is in a protein sequence. And not being able to know which combination of the dice resulted in the "seven" is like not being able to know which codon specified the amino acid. The "faith" my father is talking about is the faith that scientists have that they can discover the origin of life. They cannot. The origin of life is an axiom of biology.
"Intelligent Design" is religion masquerading as science. Also, the discovery of the microscope pre-dated Darwin. And there is no failure of the fossil record.
Cynthia Yockey
Cynthia Yockey, Writer
Belcamp, MD
cynthia@cynthiayockey.com
(See "comments," here: http://www.cornellsun.com/medi...)
Comment by edarrell — January 30, 2006 @ 1:50 am
January 30th, 2006 at 6:26 am
LOL, "legend". Mike, you are the one who just spun a legend in this post of yours — you are miles off of anything like the real origins of the ID movement. Go read Barbara Forrest's expert reports from the Dover case, describing fundraising documents, FTE Articles of Incorporation, advertisements for proto-Pandas, etc. These people were on a classic creationist mission to do apologetics in the public schools, and they were using a classic creation science "two model", creation vs. evolution approach — until the Edwards decision, after which they did the switcheroo. If you don't deal with Forrests's expert reports then you aren't even an informed commentator on the origins of Pandas and ID.
The expert reports are online here:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?pa...
As we discovered in the Kitzmiller case, the ID movement's history isn't any better than its science: wishful thinking trumps reality at every step. They did, however, manage to fool people about their history for quite awhile.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 6:26 am
January 30th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Nick asks:
"You say that the authors of Pandas "had begun to sincerely express a new argument." Do new scientific arguments typically get expressed in textbooks aimed at public school ninth-grade biology classrooms? Why do you think they might have done that?"
Perhpas, I submit, for the same reasons that Pat Robertson advocates putting your children in sunday School as soon as they can talk.
Comment by derwood — January 30, 2006 @ 9:02 am
January 30th, 2006 at 10:31 am
One thing I think needs to be considered is that the words "create", "creator" and "created" have use outside of creationism as we know it (unless the Declaration of Independence is to be considered a creationist document!). Even if Pandas originally had the word, it doesn't mean that the concepts expressed therein were the same as what we commonly call creationism. To refer to the original Pandas as containing "creationist language" may be to apply judicially invented terminological norms to it that weren't norms prior to the 1987 decision. As Mike said, "The change in terminology from "˜creationism' to "˜intelligent design' was catalyzed by this decision, as the authors/publishers did not want all their work tossed into the trash bin." In other words, the Court had essentially defined certain words as belonging to YEC, and so the Pandas people had to change the terminology to make the distinction between their positions clear.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 10:31 am
January 30th, 2006 at 11:07 am
I like quizzes. Here's one — who wrote the following, and when?
Warning: if you rely on Barb Forrest's historiography of ID, you'll get this wrong for sure.
I'll post the answer in a day or so.
Comment by Paul Nelson — January 30, 2006 @ 11:07 am
January 30th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Hi Paul,
Uh yes, I love quizzes. Lemme see… it's Phillip Johnson, right? No, that's not it… Duane Gish? No, now I know: It's Archdeacon William Paley!
Comment by Krauze — January 30, 2006 @ 11:49 am
January 30th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Hi Paul! You were a Critical Reviewer on the 1989 Of Pandas and People. Did you know about the terminology switch in Pandas?
PS: The quote is from Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who are nothing more than cranks when it comes to evolution. See their "transitional fossils don't exist, therefore Archaeoptyryx is a fake" episode which the creationists/proto-IDers were uncritical dawdling over for most of the 1980's. See also Hoyle on the Big Bang, Hoyle on the "tornado in a junkyard" false analogy for evolution, etc.
Creationists since the 1920's have been (a) misquoting/mischaracterizing/overinterpreting legitimate scientific views, and (b) relying heavily on fringe/crank works that can be characterized as "secular" in order to provide some smoke and cover for their fundamental claim, miraculous special creation. What was happening in the 1980's with Hoyle and Denton was no different. The real sources for most of the content of Pandas, though, were creationist books like The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Ray Bohlin, Probe Ministries) and The Case for Creation (Frair and Percival Davis).
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Hi Nick,
"See their "transitional fossils don't exist, therefore Archaeoptyryx is a fake" episode which the creationists/proto-IDers were uncritical dawdling over for most of the 1980's."
So, by the reasoning that intelligent design is creationism because they use the same arguments, wouldn't this make Hoyle and Wickramasinghe creationists?
Comment by Krauze — January 30, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
I believe with the Archy situation, the creationists were copying Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, not the other way around (although it appears that avowed creationist Lee Spetner was one of their coauthors on the Archy-is-fake claims).
Regarding whether or not they were creationists, while they were mostly just cranks in a category all their own, here is the title of their book:
Evolution From Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism
by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe
Simon & Schuster (September 12, 1982)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Nick,
No, I didn't know about the "terminology switch" in Pandas.
Kudos for identifying Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. 1982 is five years prior to Edwards v. Aguillard, however, which rather spoils the Barb Forrest story line.
But let me give you an opportunity to call yet another scientist a "crank," and also to provide more evidence against Barb's "ID was all post-Edwards v. Aguillard" thesis.
Who wrote the following, and when?
Comment by Paul Nelson — January 30, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Hi Nick,
"I believe with the Archy situation, the creationists were copying Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, not the other way around (although it appears that avowed creationist Lee Spetner was one of their coauthors on the Archy-is-fake claims)."
Of course. So it was really the creationists who were being panspermists (panspermianists?), right? Also, if an old article in a creationist magazine was discovered, using the arguments before H&W did, would that then make them creationists?
"Regarding whether or not they were creationists, while they were mostly just cranks in a category all their own, here is the title of their book:"
Yes, and I believe Theodosius Dobzhansky also called himself "a creationist and an evolutionist". Those dang words, being used by different people to mean different things.
Comment by Krauze — January 30, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Okay, I have the name and year on that quote, but I got it the cheap way (Googling) so I won't answer :-).
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Me too.
Sure is easy to be in the know with Google.
Comment by Pez — January 30, 2006 @ 4:27 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Quote-wise,
I haven't even googled it, but "creative intelligence" sounds like an early 1980's book by a Brit leprosy researcher that Buell sometimes cites as important to him. It was a very muddled book as I recall.
(checks google — nothing — checking my personal digital library of Pandas sources — ah yes)
E.J. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, Ellis Horwood Limited, 1982. Page 143.
This is clearly a creationist work, basically progressive creationism. Don't miss the bits about a Creator, God, the ressurection, Jesus Christ, etc., toward the end, or the last sentence, "A belief in the after-life has been a basic belief of humanity from the earliest times, without this knowledge our understanding of the meaning of the biological world is incomplete." (p. 171)
The book even contains one of many instances of a creationist making the irreducible complexity argument long before Behe. This is not exactly the kind of thing that is going to help convince me, or more importantly a judge, that ID is not creationism relabeled.
OK, my turn to have you guys guess a quote:
Nick
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
This is a fun game. Anything published before 1987, arguing for the intelligent design of organisms, is "creationism" (or "cranky"). Never mind the content — just attach the label. Then, by chronological necessity, ID is creationism relabelled.
And no one has to think. Once they see "creationism," they'll react as desired.
E.J. Ambrose, btw, was a professor of cell biology at the University of London. Obviously a crank.
Comment by Paul Nelson — January 30, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Paul writes,
Are you sure you didn't read/comment/edit a draft of the book? You're listed right there as a "Critical Reviewer" and the switch from "creation" to "intelligent design" came pretty late in the whole process of putting Pandas together — Nancy Pearcey only put the summary chapter together in 1988-1989 I think and she published a creationist version of that same text in the Bible-Science Newsletter in 1989.
The actual storyline is that the creationist world was rocked by creation science's spectacular failure in the 1981 McLean v. Arkansas trial. Dean Kenyon (a scheduled McLean witness who fled town the day before he was to testify) and Percival Davis (coauthor with McLean witness Wayne Frair) were recruited by Charles Thaxton and Jon Buell to work on what they explicitly described as a two-model, creation vs. evolution book. Determined to avoid the same fate as the Arkansas bill, Wendell Bird recruited Dean Kenyon, at least as early as 1984, to supply the key affidavit in the Edwards case. (The affidavit is almost a verbatim copy of a 1984 article that Kenyon wrote, "A Creationist View of Origins.") The creationists hoped that this newer, vaguer version of creation-science, designed specifically for legal purposes, would past constitutional muster. When it didn't, they relabeled it "intelligent design" and got another 15 years out of it, but also sowed the seeds of their own legal destruction.
Here is my view: Intelligent design = the vague form of creation science devised between 1982-1986 during the Edwards v. Aguillard litigation for eventual use in the Supreme Court. Pandas was the book they intended to push in the public schools, as an allegedly "scientific" version of creationism if they won. So you're right, ID was not born as a reaction to to the 1987 Edwards decision, it was born as a reaction to the 1981 McLean decision, and only renamed as a reaction to Edwards.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Paul,
It's not my fault that E.J. Ambrose (1982) misunderstands punctuated equilibria, repeats all the same old bogus probability-of-random-assembly arguments, and inserts a "Creator" into the perceived gaps. This is old-earth creationism in the traditional sense, if words have any meaning.
E.g., "May we conclude reverently that the work of a Creator of the universe has not been a simple step of 'let these things be so', but that the Creator has been intimately involved in the development of the biological world and is still so involved." (p. 164)
Although I haven't called Ambrose a crank yet (I applied that title to Hoyle and Wickramasinghe who richly deserve it, among other things, for defaming about 5 generations of actual paleontologists by claiming that Archaeopteryx was a fake — oh, and they didn't buy the Big Bang, either), spewing nonsense about a topic is indicative of crankery about that topic, even if you are a very nice man who really does know his stuff in some other field. Modelling evolution as a random all-at-once assembly process, as Ambrose does, is a classic sign of crankery. And I don't see how you can get annoyed that I call invoking a Creator creationism.
Anyone figured out my quote yet? It's someone you know.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
"Here is my view: Intelligent design = the vague form of creation science devised between 1982-1986 during the Edwards v. Aguillard litigation for eventual use in the Supreme Court."
That view would be wrong. As I point out here, creationists and IDists have two separate intellectual histories. I agree that there was a convergence, of sorts, where some creation scientists started using some natural theology and ID arguments. But that doesn't make ID equal to creation science.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
So, Macht, you're telling me that Dean Kenyon, author of the "intelligent design" textbook Of Pandas and People, was not referring to Pandas and People when he wrote in his sworn affidavit supporting creation science in the federal courts,
Edwards v. Aguillard: Affidavit of Creationist Dean Kenyon
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...
PS: The post you link to assumes that natural theology is not creationism. Paley would beg to differ. Go count how many times the word "Creator" appears in Natural Theology.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Did Ambrose in his book explicitly deny common descent (I'm honestly asking. I haven't read it.) That would be a minimum requirement to qualify for what most people usually call "creationism" - Unless by "creationist" you simply mean "anyone who thinks that any aspect of life came about intentionally", in which case the term as you use it is so malleable that calling ID creationism is pretty meaningless.
Ah, well that answers the question of which definition of "creationism" you're using.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Hi Nick,
"The post you link to assumes that natural theology is not creationism. Paley would beg to differ."
Considering that creationism arose in the 1960's, I beg to differ. This isn't just a question of the word "creationism" not existing at that time (at least not in the sense that we use it today), mind you. Trying to interpret writings in terms of concepts unknown to that period of time is what historians refer to as an anachronism. Another example of an anachronism would be the claim that Darwin was interested in what caused a change in gene frequency in a population over time, considering that it imports concepts from population genetics that were unknown to Darwin.
Creationism is concerned with questions such as the age of the Earth and the universe, as well as the extent and nature of the Flood described in Genesis, whereas Paley was interested in things like the existence and attributes of God (to borrow from the subtitle of his famous work), as well as details of zoology and botany. Furthermore, creationism is a response to a scientific worldview that simply didn't exist when Paley put pen to paper.
Lumping Paley in with the creationists, as if they pondered the same questions and came to the same conclusions, while politically advantageous, is ignoring a rich and complex body of differences.
Comment by Krauze — January 30, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
I didn't mention Dean Kenyon, so the logical conclusion would be that I wasn't saying anything about him.
I was going by the Ronald Numbers' use of the term in his aptly titled article, "The Creationists."
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Krauze writes, "Considering that creationism arose in the 1960's…"
Um, have you ever heard of the Scopes Trial? Ever heard of the "special creation", which Darwin was rebutting in the Origin of Species? The concept of invoking divine intervention in an explanation of biological origins goes back pretty darn far.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
First, let me say I haven't read Pandas, and I don't intend to endorse Kenyon. Okay, with that out of the way, let's step back and think about this for a second. We know that in Edwards, it was YEC ("creation science") specifically that was at issue. We also know that Kenyon isn't a YEC. So what do you think he meant by that? There's a few possibilities here. One possibility is that he wasn't referring to Pandas, but thought there was value in "creation science" being compared in schools, even though he disagreed with that view himself. Another is that he was unclear on what precisely was meant by "creation science", and was referring to his own book, or that he was trying to advance a broader use of the term that the defendants. A third possibility is that Kenyon is secretly a damned dirty "creation science" YEC, and has been maliciously lying about it his whole life.
The logic you seem to be advancing (Kenyon said that something called "creation science" could be taught in schools, Kenyon had a textbook where he had the word "create" which he changed to "ID", therefore Kenyon must have been referring to his own book, therefore Kenyon's book is "creation science", therefore ID is "creation science") just doesn't seem that obvious to me in this instance.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 7:01 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
No, Numbers says that "scientific creationism"/"creation science", a specific movement with specific phraseology, arose in the 1960's. He would acknowledge that creationism writ large is much older.
As is happens, the "intelligent design" movement is a direct lineal descendent of the "creation science" movement. I suspect that Numbers would acknowledge this if he were ever to comment specifically on the evidence discovered in the Kitzmiller trial.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Deuce: "We also know that Kenyon isn't a YEC."
Actually, based on what I've heard, Kenyon is a YEC.
As for you, Nick, do you have Summer for the Gods, Edward Larson's account of the Scopes trial and the issues surrounding it, in your library? If so, look up what Larson writes about distinguishing between fundamentalism, anti-evolutionism, and creationism. If not, I'll post some quotes tomorrow, when I have access to the book.
Comment by Krauze — January 30, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
You can suspect all you want, but it doesn't make it true. In the second article that I pointed in the link I provided, Numbers had all the opportunity in the world to make the connection between creation science and ID and he didn't. In fact, as I pointed out, he does just the opposite and shows that they come from two different places.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Nick:
I think it would be more accurate to say that the "intelligent design" movement is a direct lineal descendent of the ideas of Michael Denton, and not Henry Morris. Michael Denton is no creation scientist.
Comment by Guts — January 30, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
If so, I stand humbly corrected!
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Macht writes,
Macht, you talked about IDists, and Dean Kenyon is by everyone's acknowledgement an important early IDist, although it is often omitted by the ID side that he self-described as a creationist before that.
Deuce writes,
We do? Let's see what Dean Kenyon said in his affidavit, which was repeatedly mentioned by Wendell Bird in oral arguments before SCOTUS, and which Scalia cites numerous times in his dissent in Edwards. Dean Kenyon writes in his affidavit,
Hm, I seem to have heard these denials issued by another movement with another name as well.
We do? I've looked pretty hard and I've never seen Kenyon make a clear statement either way. On the one hand, Pandas sometimes refers to millions of years, but usually prefaces it with something equivocal like "on the conventional timescale". And Kenyon wrote a Preface for the book What is Creation Science? by superYEC Henry Morris and YEC Gary Parker, and he wrote a chapter for a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith, a famous YEC.
I suspect that legally-convenient Strategic Ambiguity on the question has been his consistent policy, a policy later adopted by the ID movement at large.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Well, he wasn't working on any other textbooks at the time, and the one he was working on did happen to be on the exact same topic.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
As I said,
"I agree that there was a convergence, of sorts, where some creation scientists started using some natural theology and ID arguments. But that doesn't make ID equal to creation science." This is a very simple concept to understand.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 7:26 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I encourage people (aka, Nick) to read this.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
I think Numbers was, for awhile, taken in by the we're-not-creationists rhetoric of the ID movement. He wasn't the only one. I have yet to see him ever take a look at Pandas or where it came from. Sooner or later, we'll see what he says then.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
But that is the position that the defendants were pushing, and is what has always been referred to as "creation science". Definitely that's what Gish and Morris had in mind. Regardless of Kenyon's personal opinions on the matter, then, it sounds then like the second possibility that I mentioned above:
…
It was the entire chain of inference that I was questioning, not just that part of it. That is, it doesn't follow from him saying that "a textbook" could present "creation science" that he meant his textbook. If he meant his textbook, it doesn't follow that he meant the same thing by "creation science" as everyone else. Even if he is really a "creation scientist" in the conventional sense, it doesn't follow that everyone else associated with him (Behe, for instance) also got their ideas from "creation science" and that ID is really then just creation science.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
"I think Numbers was, for awhile, taken in by the we're-not-creationists rhetoric of the ID movement."
And I think the moon is made of green cheese. Of course, neither of us have any evidence for either of our statements. You would do well to actually read what Numbers says (assuming you haven't already) and engage with what he actually writes.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Well folks, I've got to be going for today. If I haven't yet convinced you that standard ID is creationism relabeled, then you should listen to Paul Nelson himself, who explicitly stated that the ID book Of Pandas and People was a creationist textbook when he wrote the quote I gave above:
From p. 19 of: Mark Harwig and Paul Nelson, Invitation to Conflict: A Retrospective Look at the California Science Framework. With a forward from Phillip E. Johnson. Published by the Access Research Network, 1992.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
I think there is a certain comfort in Nick quoting a creationist calling something "creationist" (bfd) as his best argument, rather than Nick showing how fundamental ID concepts are explicitely and inherently creationist. He cannot do the latter because ID is much bigger than creationism.
Comment by Guts — January 30, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
That quote by Nelson fits in perfectly with my theory! Thank you for that. If you have some argument against what I wrote in the link I provided, I would love to hear it.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
Are you saying that the Defendants' lawyer, Wendell Bird, lied to the U.S. Supreme Court when he based his whole case on affidavits, primarily Dean Kenyon's, that defined creation science in this unusual fashion?
Or perhaps you are saying that the Defense in Edwards was less than honest about what they were really after? That perhaps they were trying to disguise their fundamentally religious project as science?
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
macht writes,
Macht, if you admit that Pandas is a creationist book with an "intelligent design" label pasted on, then you have admitted that at least 99.9% of what people are talking about when they discuss ID — all of the books and institutions and news articles — basically everything except a few fringe websites like Telic Thoughts — really is undeniably "creationism relabeled" or "creationism in a cheap tuxedo". You are admitting that every time us ID skeptics have alleged this in the media, we have been right to a very good approximation, despite all of the protestations of the Discovery Institute (which you guys often sympathetically quote, despite your repeated insistence that you aren't like those guys). Half the modern Discovery Institute co-authored or reviewed that book, and all of the modern ID arguments, including specified complexity and irreducible complexity, can be traced back to it.
In other words, if you concede this you've lost the argument we've been having, and instead are arguing that a few ID bloggers at Telic Thoughts aren't creationists, because they are using an idiosyncratic definition of ID that is completely different from the usage everyplace else.
OK, now I'm gone.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 8:08 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Should we listen to Nick Matzke?
Comment by Benjii — January 30, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Hey, I'm not trying to defend "creation science" in the courts here, or the people involved. I would say that there was a bit of deception, or at least self-deception, going on there. I'm simply pointing out that "creation science", as everyone knows it (and as the Court found there) is preoccupied with the age of the earth and the Biblical flood, and all that. That a particular guy, Kenyon, used it in a sense that didn't mean that, and also worked on Pandas, doesn't entail that ID is just what goes as "creation science" repackaged. Like I said, it's the entire line of inference that I'm not buying.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Nick, everything I "admit" is already in that link I provided. I'm talking about the ID arguments, ideas, etc. I'm not talking about the political maneuvering, the rhetoric, the institutes, etc.
You guys are perfectly within your rights, I suppose, to use an "approximation" to reality when talking to the media. I realize you need nice sound bytes to get your message across. You are no different than the DI in that respect. But that doesn't really fly with me. When you are willing to engage with me about things that are more than approximations, you know where to find me.
Comment by macht — January 30, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Arrgh. The textbook was concurrent with the Edwards case. Dean Kenyon wrote at least these drafts of Pandas:
Creation Biology (1983)
Biology & Creation (1986)
Biology & Origins (1987)
Of Pandas and People (1987)
Of Pandas and People (1987, first ID version)
Of Pandas and People (1989, published)
Of Pandas and People (1993, published)
Do you really think it's likely that Kenyon did not have in mind a textbook he had been working on since at least 1983 and probably a year or two before? I'm not saying it was the only book he had in mind — the ICR was working on a revised two model book at the same time as well.
Here's another way to look at the key issue, which is whether or not "creation science" and "intelligent design" were the same thing in Dean Kenyon's head. In his affadavit, Dean Kenyon said,
Kenyon doesn't talk about creation science at all in the published version of Pandas. But his logic in his affadavit makes it pretty inescapable what ID must be for Dean Kenyon: creation science.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 30, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 9:35 pm
They likely were the same, or at least close to the same, in his head. However, that doesn't mean that what Kenyon called "creation science" is what is generally called creation science (or what the Court defined creation science to be), or that what he called ID is what others call ID (From what I've heard, Pandas does indeed include some characterizations that some prominent IDers would disagree with, even ones that reviewed it).
Here's your fundamental problem, and why your point is falling on deaf ears. Pretty much everybody knows what "creation science" is all about - the idea that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that there was a catastrophic global flood that put all the fossils in place, etc, and that all this can be shown scientifically. Everyone here also knows the premise behind ID - that one can rationally infer intention behind some things by observing the characteristics of those things. These two concepts are simply different, regardless of who calls which things what.
Furthermore, anyone can see where these two different concepts trace their history. The former goes back to the 60s YEC movement, while the latter idea goes through Polyani, Paley, the Greeks, and so on.
It's not really surprising that some people who subscribe to the first concept would also see value in the second concept. It's not really surprising that some people who subscribed to the first concept would be participants in the resurgance of the second concept. It's not really surprising that people who subscribed to both, or who subscribed to the second concept and were sympathetic to subscribers of the first, would sometimes have difficulty compartmentalizing, and would use the same term to refer to both their views, or would phrase things when discussing the second concept so as not to contradict the first (hence, likely, the reference to "conventional timescales").
Nevertheless, the two concepts are distinct, and also have distinct histories, and anybody can see it. Fuzzy or improperly used terms on the part of some can't paper over the conceptual distinction. Hence, attempts to conflate them by pointing out that so-and-so agreed with both, and sometimes used the same term for both, look like semantical games to us. The impression is worsened when you conflate the first concept with the views of those who predated the first concept because they used words like "Creator" according to the different terminological norms of their day.
Comment by Deuce — January 30, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
"It may lead an observer to wonder if TT's helps to promote mainstream ID (and creatonism) or instead if it wants to promote its own particular form of anti-theistic ID evolutionism." - Arago
"There are atheists and theists who are Evolutionists, and who are united in decrying "Intelligent Design", right? Yet no one questions whether those atheists are trying to "promote" theism, or whether those theists are trying to promote "atheism". Is this a double-standard, or double-vision, or am I just not understanding why the two cases (discerning motives or promotional intent among IDists, and also among Evolutionists) are not comparable?" - Douglas
Perhaps we are somehow on the same page again Douglas in this case. Certainly discerning motives between the two cases are comparable (though why would a natural scientist seeking 'objectivity' be interested to talk about or question motives?). I've been curious about the TT's who are promoting ID, but not the awowed theological 'implications' spoken about by its leaders. The coiners of the terms 'i+d' are conveniently left out by Gene's maverick streak and Krauze's tendency to 'run with it' (see quote above) outside the IDM's 'orthodox' views. The phraseology had to start somewhere.
On the other hand, I wouldn't exactly phrase it as you have that atheists and theists are 'united in decrying ID.' The motives of non-theistic or anti-theistic evolutionists arguing against i+d theories are usually quite obvious. Instead, from paying attention to the arguments of theists who reject ID, especially scientist-theists, I think one gets a clearer picture of the limitations of i+d theories, while still there is respect for a common worldview.
ID-theists don't seem to address fellow theists who are anti-ID (whom P. Johnson admitted confuse him) as much as they like to promote polemics in attacking the easier non-theistic or anti-theistic dissenters to i+d. The agnostics who side with i+d theories because there 'just must be something to it,' even if ID's not exactly scientific, are thus leaning towards supporting theists and creationists on this occasion.
Wouldn't it be somewhat ironic if people at TT's were trying to promote knowledge and understanding about an intelligent cause by remaining agnostic?
Comment by g arago — January 30, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Hi Nick,
Sorry I missed your question the first time around. So let me address it (and others).
You write:
Yes, that is part of the hypothesis. I have no inside knowledge here, so I am guessing. But I base this hypothesis on two facts. First, as I showed, the seeds of the ID concept had been planted before the Supreme Court decision. Second, I know from experience that many critics are quick to impart sinister motives to the ID crowd.
No.
This was addressed in the material prior to where you quote me. I opine as follows:
In your next reply, you say to me:
You're wrong. Note that I begin my blog as follows:
Now note that you have replaced "the concept of Intelligent Design" with "the ID movement." I make the distinction between the concept and the movment, focusing on the conceptual development. The only reason Pandas is part of the story is because critics tell the conspiratorial tale about a concept being invented (poofed?) as a Trojan Horse.
If there is something in the expert reports that refutes one of the points I raise in my blog, feel free to share it. But keep in mind that the origin of some social movement is of secondary importance - pay attention to my lead sentences.
Comment by MikeGene — January 30, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Eddarrell:
You obviously did not read the blog. The origin of the concept of ID comes from a teleological interpretation of the fact that life is based on sequences. That creationists would pick this up and add it to their "arsenal" is neither all that surprising or significant.
As for the Yockey quote:
Here I know you do have a reading comprehension problem. I know this because Arik Soong was able to understand a significant point in my blog, leading me to reply:
Now simply compare this to the Yockey quote you provided afterwards.
Comment by MikeGene — January 30, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
January 30th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Deuce writes,