The Chamberlainites and the Churchillians
by MikeGeneIt's official. Richard Dawkins, the celebrity scientist from Oxford University, has acknowledged there are indeed two types of ID critics - the Chamberlainites and the Churchillians:
Dawkins writes:
Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain "˜appeasement' school, as I have called it in my book, focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease "˜moderate' or "˜sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased.
Cut-and-paste this, people.
As we at Telic Thoughts have long noted, there are at least two schools of ID critics. There are those who really are focused on evolution and science education and their position is respectable (although their tactics are rarely respectable). But then there are those who use science and evolution as a Trojan Horse to evangelize for atheism. With these words, Dawkins has officially acknowledged this. He cares about evolution and science primarily as part of a larger battle to rid the world of people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller.
As an aside, it's quite funny to see Dawkins bravely place himself in a Winston Churchill school. When real threats to science appear, in the form of animal rights extremists who fire-bomb his school (Oxford University) and threaten his scientific colleagues and students, Dawkins doesn't even qualify for the Neville Chamberlain school. He qualifies only for the School of the Deaf and Dumb as he refuses to utter one word of condemnation against these anti-science forces. Of course, such irresponsible shunning of such an important issue is understandable if you are Richard Dawkins, given the manner in which his writings have been inspirational to the animal rights terrorists.
Back to the two schools:
It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it "“ an estimate that may change as more information comes in. Humanity's best estimate of the probability of divine creation dropped steeply in 1859 when The Origin of Species was published, and it has declined steadily during the subsequent decades, as evolution consolidated itself from plausible theory in the nineteenth century to established fact today.
There they go again. Now Dawkins is contradicting his fellow atheist, Michael Shermer, who argues, " the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives." Are the critics making things up as they go along? Then again, maybe Shermer is one of those heretical Chamberlainites.
The Chamberlain tactic of snuggling up to "˜sensible' religion, in order to present a united front against ("˜intelligent design') creationists, is fine if your central concern is the battle for evolution. That is a valid central concern, and I salute those who press it, such as Eugenie Scott in Evolution versus Creationism. But if you are concerned with the stupendous scientific question of whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not, the lines are drawn completely differently. On this larger issue, fundamentalists are united with "˜moderate' religion on one side, and I find myself on the other.
Cut-and-paste this one too, people, as Dawkins repeats his significant confession so no one can miss it. There are indeed two camps of critics and one camp uses science and evolution as a Trojan Horse to evangelize for atheism. With these words, Dawkins has officially acknowledged this.
Now, I have long expressed my public disapproval of the Wedge strategy and the attempt to get ID taught in the schools. Don't you think I am thus justified in expecting all ID critics that I interact with to make it clear whether they agree with Dawkins/Myers or Scott/Matzke when it comes to discussions of ID? Are they defending science or using science to promote Atheism?
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:25 pm
MikeGene wrote…
Is that the sound of the drums of war?
Why don't we all come clean and present our personal proposals without withholding hidden faiths or non-faiths?
What are we supposed to do, sew crosses and not-crosses on our clothes so you can tell us apart?
Why is it so darn important to marshal forces instead of mashalling evidence?
If you don't like what Dawkins wrote in his book, write your own book (oh yeah, you did that).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Hi TP,
You ask, "Why is it so darn important to marshal forces instead of mashalling evidence?" I am not marshalling forces. On the contrary, such distinctions are essential if we are to marshal "evidence." We have already seen that for most ID critics, they hear "God" when "ID" is spoken or written. If you are a Churchillian, this is likely to elicit reflexive hostility, hyper-skepticism, and a demand for a magic bullet that is so sensational and so powerful that it could "convert" even Richard Dawkins. Anything less than this will not be considered "evidence" as it would fatally wound the Churchillian agenda.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:46 pm
BTW, this section also shows the DI payroll:
Did you catch that? Whether the universe was created by a supernatural intelligence or not is a stupendous SCIENTIFIC question.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
MikeGene wrote…
Thank you for not overreacting to my emotional post. I wrote in haste.
I can't (and won't) speak for all "ID critics", but I don't know if I am a "Churchillian" or a "Chamberlainite". Most of the time I do think ID proponents are assuming a supernatural designer because of the skittish nature whenever we get close to the topic. For this reason, I came up with my own ID proposal in an attempt to avoid the whole issue. Even then, I get accused of trying to argue the nature of the designer.
Yes, I believe the avoidance of discussing anything close to an affirmative proposal is evidence that most ID propoents are hiding something. What are they hiding? I think it just might be… a belief in God.
I would gladly welcome a proposal that start with… "Yes, I believe the designer is God but that isn't overly important since I am assuming…." and then begin listing the assumptions.
So, am I a Chuchillian because I think most ID proponents are thinking God but don't want to admit it? Or am I a Chamberlainite because I am more interested in the scientific assumptions and arguments then what faith is behind it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
Hey TP,
Dawkins defines Churchillian for us:
Put simply, a Churchillian is someone who is trying to rid the world of religion and they view science as the main sword in their crusade. They are Culture Warriors.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 10:15 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:29 pm
MikeGene wrote…
I am hearing the war drums again. I don't care what Dawkins thinks. I want to know what you think.
I will make it even tougher for you. I don't think anyone should be appeasing anyone when it comes to science. We each make our own proposals, if they hurt other people's sensitivities, well tough. Pursuit of knowledge isn't supposed to be a popularity contest.
Am I a Churchillian?
I won't bow down to an omnipotent creator even if one exists.
Now am I a Churchillian?
Dawkins says he is equally agnostic for fairies or God.
I am that type of agnostic.
Now am I a Churchillian?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
[...] MikeGene thinks he has found a smoking gun in the hands of no less than Richard Dawkins, the famous atheist and evolutionist. He quotes Dawkins as comparing scientists to Neville Chamberlain or Winston Churchill, as regards their approach to dealing with creationism. Those who advocate "appeasing" creationists are like Chamberlain (whose appeasement of Hitler had disastrous consequences). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. [...]
Pingback by Heaven is not the sky » Blog Archive » MikeGene’s “Smoking Gun” — September 23, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
What a tough guy.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Hi TP,
What do I think? Well, you'd be a Churchillian if you are using science in some attempt to rid the world of religion.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:01 pm
MikeGene wrote…
The 65 year-old Dawkins is using inflammitory language ("battle", "war"). You are responding in kind. You wrote…
Do you know if Myers agrees 100% with Dawkins? Myers apparently thinks science shouldn't be twisted to appease anyone. Not even Ken Miller. Myres felt "justified" (your word) in fighting back. Now he is one of "them", right?
If you want to demand identification, may I suggest you start with me.
I will make it easier on you. It would be my desire to see a lot less religous fanatisism in the world, and it is my hope science will help that come about.
Are you going to form a version of McCarthy's House Unamerican Committee now?
You see now Dawkins as the threat. Just what "justification" does that give you? Please think. You could use this to open up dialog or to close ranks.
Which will it be?
You seem like a good person, I like this blog. I hope this effort of mine is not in vain.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Hi TP,
Of course not. I leave those tactics to the critics.
I explained my reasoning above. If a) you are a Churchillian, hoping that science will help you rid the world of religion, and b) you hear "God" when "ID" is spoken or written, then c) this helps me gauge your assessment of the "evidence" for ID.
I don't see Dawkins as a threat. It's Dawkins who is threatened.
As for the authoritarian Steel Toes, when he is not crying about being thrown to the wolves, he's posting people's addresses, phone numbers, and google maps on his blog. A Man of Science.
Comment by MikeGene — September 23, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Mike Gene wrote…
I think you are passing up a golden opportunity to take the high road. However, I offered to be your first test subject for your Churchillian identification check so here goes…
a) Am I hoping that science will help me rid the world of religion?
I tend not to hope for things that are impossible. I think the world would be better off without any religious dogma, but that is as unrealistic as thinking the world would be better off with no suffering. The best I would hope for is that science would reduce both.
b) you hear "God" when "ID" is spoken or written?
I think of ID as one of two thrings. Powerful Creator or Telic Processes. No ID proponent I have talked to has accepted a Telic Process proposal. To me, a powerful creator is just another name for God (supernatural or not). So yes, I presume "God" when "ID" is spoken or written until shown otherwise.
c) this helps me gauge your assessment of the "evidence" for ID.
Just another way of saying, you are either with us, or against us.
Just what does God and religion have to do with scientific evidence of the possibility that a Telic Process of Nature "designed" life? If you throw that ID alternative out, all you are left with is a designer/creator. The creator of life is God by definition. It doesn't matter if the creator was an Alpha Centaurian. There would be people who would bow down and worship the star, tomorrow.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 23, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Hi TP,
You write:
Not at all. If I say that X is evidence for ID and the critic says that X is not evidence for ID, what shall I do? We can't put X into an instrument that will objectively determine if X is really evidence. Evidence is, after all, a perspective-dependent "awareness" that is manufactured by the human mind as it processes the sensory data to make "sense" of the world.
Now, being the dim bulb that I am, it's quite possible that my critic opponent may be smarter or more knowledgeable than I am. Normally, I should defer. But wait. What if the critic can't tease apart ID from the concept of God (while I can) and has a vested interest in helping rid the world of God belief (when I don't)? I would be a fool for deferring, as how would I know that my opponent's assessment of the "evidence" was not rigged by his Churchillian agenda (with or without him being aware of this)?
If you want to convince me of something, you need more than "evidence."
You need my trust.
Comment by MikeGene — September 24, 2006 @ 12:11 am
September 24th, 2006 at 12:46 am
Hi Mike…
Well said.
Of all the ID proponents I have reasearched you are, by far, the most impressive I have run across. I am impressed because you state your assumption/proposals clearly and honestly.
I wish your habits would run off on others.
I may change my tune after I read your book, but at this point I am looking forward to reading it.
No, I don't think you are going to "convert" me, but at least I will have a fighting chance at understanding what you are actually proposing.
I still disagree with your reaction to Dawkins. But that is your choice.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 12:46 am
September 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
Thought Provoker,
Wanna bet?
Comment by Douglas — September 24, 2006 @ 10:05 am
September 24th, 2006 at 10:42 am
I wrote…
I won't bow down to an omnipotent creator even if one exists.
Douglas reacted with…
Do I have free will?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 10:42 am
September 24th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
Thought Provoker:
You (much like the vast majority of ID critics I've encountered) seem to have discounted any and all reasonable inferences from the variety of scientific disciplines that would factor in a determination of telic process in the design of living organisms. For instance, I strongly suspect telic processes as mechanisms of design, so I follow incoming research reports that themselves strongly suggest telic processes. I think there's something here.
Looked at from a generally agnostic POV - something science likes to claim for itself outside the personal ideological corruptions of people like Dawkins and Myers [et. al.] - science simply cannot tell us about the design behind the designs we observe. The truth is that everything that *is* can only be reduced so far as fundamental physics, and fundamental physics is much, much weirder than the simplistic hand-waving dismissals many biologists extend toward physicists who have been trying to tell them this for decades.
The several current competing hypotheses/theories seeking to formalize the source of organization at the most fundamental level[s] of existence all contain between 1 and infinite "extra" dimensions of reality. We, as the most 'evolved' consciousness we are aware of, have apparently not yet developed the sensory ability to directly perceive more than 3+1 dimensions - as if awareness in 3+1 is all that has been required for survival and reproductive success in evolutionary terms here on planet earth - earned through our evolutionary journey on this planet.
Yet there are strong hints that a majority of us do have a rudimentary sensory ability to perceive 'more', but it's usually indirect and we assign such perceptions to a supervenient level of reality we call "spiritual." This is the aspect of human consciousness that religion (and philosophy/metaphysics generally) have been trying to formalize ever since homo sapiens appeared on this planet.
If in fact human beings in significant numbers do have abilities to sense another level of reality, the "religious impulse" (metaphysical attempts to formalize the perceptions) is never going to go away just because a tiny minority of humans who completely lack these proclivities believe their *lack* of perception represents the pinnacle of natural evolution. Nor will the outcome of silly science wars in this generation determine the nature of reality for all time. If in fact there are more dimensions than 3+1 in the totality of reality, we cannot rule out the existence and/or causal efficacy of consciousness in any or all of them. And human beings, dimly perceiving this 'more', do tend to call it God/gods.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that. What's wrong with the sociopolitical formalizations of that is the product of human psychology in these 3+1. An entirely different issue from the question of whether or not a supervenient 'more' impinges upon our 3+1 reality.
IOW, biological science will never 'kill God'. It wouldn't hurt if anti-religion warriors like Dawkins and Myers [et. al.] were to accept that reality and stop pretending that their own inability to perceive 'more' must dictate the whole range of perception for the whole of humanity. It'll never work, and is a dangerous game to play if you're representing less than ~2% of the population.
Dawkins, Myers, you and everybody else who cares to take a position can freely choose to believe there's nothing 'more' than what you personally perceive. What you cannot do is remove from the rest of humanity their ability to perceive 'more' through simple appeal to your own authority or will to power. It strikes me as absurd they'd bother to try. And more foolish than any other notable foolishness humans have ever developed a fondness for. My opinion, FWIW.
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Joy wrote…
Thank you for your thoughtful post.
I won't speak for the "vast majority of ID critics" but I haven't discounted "reasonable inferences from the variety of scientific disciplines", especially those that "would factor in a determination of telic process in the design of living organisms".
In fact, I have been formulating a proposal in support of Telic Processes that includes references to quarks, strings and a little Stephen Hawkings to boot.
I posted an introduction here once and will post it again when we stop arguing what other people think of ID or the next open thread whichever comes first.
I have posted my ID proposal twice on talk.origins and got both supporting and dismissive comments. However, I noted that the PhD types there who are usually quick to point how unscientific and stupid any ID claim is, avoided the threads entirely. (they jumped all over me for daring to defend the front-loaded universe proposal as an earnest and "good" argument by others).
Joy also wrote…
…and…
I have a lot of mixed and counteracting emotions to this. Being a product of the sixties I immediately think of the song lyrics "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong" and "There's a man with a gun over there. Telling me I got to beware"
http://people.clarkson.edu/~wi...
You may be right, society may force me to choose between drinking the hemlock or convincing myself that millions of people can't be wrong.
I am for the pursuit of knowledge not truth. In today's society, "truth" is manufactured by politicians and PR machines. If you present a proposal with assumptions and hypothesis, I will earnestly consider it even if the assumptions are "out-there". Telling me that a vague, common feeling among billions people can't be ignored is worthless towards the pursuit of knowledge unless you present a proposal.
What is your proposal?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
I always thought Churchillians were cute little mammals with thick fur, whose pelts were worth a lot of money.
Comment by Bilbo — September 24, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Proposal? We don't need no steenking proposal!… §;o)
I've no full-fledged theory you could take apart, TP (gosh, I sure wish that didn't look so much like my shopping list, with "TP" at the top…). What I strongly suspect is that physicists are correct - there are more than 3+1 dimensions in the totality of reality, and some or all of them are causal of phenomena in our sub-reality.
What I can't know and don't care to speculate about is "what" is causal, and "what" it's causal of. I'd offer gravity as a provisional suspicion, not yet quantized but under current investigation. I sure don't know that I'd consider something extradimensional that causes gravity to operate as it does here in 3+1 to be "intelligent." It might just be a natural consequence thereof, both unintended and inescapable.
What I do have is a fairly significant manifestation of what they call "synesthesia." IOW, I have 'more' and/or 'different' sensory abilities from most human beings, at least those over the age of 3. Unlike other synesthetes, who have traditionally sought out science to correct some psycho-social disability their extra sensibilities cause, I learned how to control my synesthetic percepts very early in my life. Worse, I have also been able to teach other people how to perceive synesthetically. Not all of them related to me by blood.
I have participated/am participating in extended researches on this phenomenon in the context of our multidisciplinary quest for consciousness, and the leading researcher right now (Richard Cytowic) has come to the only slightly questionable conclusion that ALL humans are born synesthetic, then develop the means to segregate sensory data based upon what is "agreed-upon" - and subsequently imposed as part of the infant/toddler learning paradigm - as sight, smell, taste, feel and sound.
But my field of interest is primarily physics. My background too, though there's a significant biological aspect included. I participate in the consciousness quest because that is where my interest was directed nearly 15 years ago, when I witnessed/experienced a genuine miracle of consciousness. One that more than a dozen scientific "hired guns" testified to in a court of law, btw. I figure that if we can all admit that miracles happen (even if we don't agree on the details), then maybe we should try to agree that there's 'more' going on than any of us is fully aware of.
Worse, I think it's pretty much all "natural," even if we don't understand and can't really hope to understand what it *is* or what it *means*.
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
LOL!!! Those were Chinchillas, Bilbo.
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Bilbo interjected…
LOL
Is that why Joy thinks being a Churchillian is "dangerous"
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Joy wrote…
Then pick apart mine. The introduction was in the front-loading open thread.
I will update it and either post it on this blog or give you a link to it.
Joy also wrote…
Maybe I didn't make it clear enough. Anyone who understands and accepts even the basics of the current mathematical models is convinced there are more than 3+1 dimensions to reality. Even old-school scientists believe it, they just require experimental data before they will accept it.
In short, I don't think there is any significant challenge to your assumption that there are more than 3+1 dimensions.
Like I said, I think you need to read my ID proposal. Many have pointed out how it resembles Sheldrake's "morphic resonance". However, I think my ID proposal is slightly more modest than that. I argue (until it is explained otherwise) that this modest ID proposal is sufficient to explain the design evidence presented by ID proponents.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 4:54 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Dangerous is as dangerous does, TP. Chinchillas are known to bite…
Comment by Joy — September 24, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
September 24th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Joy wrote…
LOL Good one.
I assure you I don't bite. My comments? Maybe. But not me.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 24, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
September 25th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Generate NEW evidence using your notion of ID to make predictions.
The scientific method is basically such an instrument, but it's more about identifying ideas, not evidence. If your notion of ID can make predictions that distinguish it from MET, you can test those predictions instead of wasting your time categorizing people.
How would categorizing people on your blog help to establish X as evidence for ID, Mike?
Comment by Smokey — September 25, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Joy writes:
Dawkins is not from the USA. The country in Europe where he comes from has a significantly higher proportion of atheists than 2% - as does Europe as a whole. So, maybe not so dangerous a game after all…
Comment by Odd Digit — September 26, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Thought Provoker,
Depends on whom you ask, I imagine. The Bible, though, teaches that, yes, you have free will, as do we all. But it also teaches that there will come a time when ALL sentient creatures will, whether they want to or not, bow the knee to God.
Comment by Douglas — September 26, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
September 26th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Douglas wrote…
And after Plantinga went through all that trouble to explain how not even an omnipotent God can both grant and not grant free will.
Does this mean Saint Augustine had it right about predestination after all?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 26, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
September 29th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Some of us (or I may be the only one, LOL, sometimes I feel that way) don't GAS about the "Churchills" and the "Chamberlains." (Although I am related genetically, by descent, to the Churchills.)
Some of us are interested in the science that is the basis of any such Angelic disputes. (Disputes amongst dead Englishmen, like Dawkins and"¦ whoever.)
If IDers (like Mike Gene) didn't have scientifically contentless criticism to constantly attend to they might actually contribute some freakin' science to the discussion. And thereby change its whole complexion.
Comment by Rock — September 29, 2007 @ 4:49 pm