The Creationist Fabrication
by MikeGeneIn their article, Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand, Niall Shanks and Karl Joplin begin their abstract as follows:
In this essay we take creationist biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the supernatural intelligent design of biochemical systems.
In the future, we shall take a closer look at this article, but for now, pay attention to the two adjectives "“ "˜creationist' and "˜supernatural.'
Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist?
Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to add the label "˜supernatural?'
To see what I am getting at, compare two sentences: A) the sentence they wrote and; B) the sentence they chose not to write "“
A. In this essay we take creationist biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the supernatural intelligent design of biochemical systems.
B. In this essay we take biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the intelligent design of biochemical systems.
Both A and B convey the same basic meaning "“ they will take Behe to task for failing to make a case for ID. So why did they decide to add these two adjectives?
Take the "supernatural." Everyone knows that Behe is trying to make the case that certain systems are Irreducibly Complex (IC) and that he argues such IC systems signal Intelligent Design (ID). But it is also clear that IC systems, even if they signal ID, do not necessarily signal supernatural design. We know this is clear to Behe for two reasons.
1. Behe's classic example of IC is the mousetrap, something Shanks and Joplin discuss. Yet the mousetrap, while a product of intelligent design, is not a product of supernatural intelligent design.
2. Behe acknowledges that IC/ID does not sufficiently lead us to supernatural design. Shanks and Joplin even discuss this:
Perhaps we organisms are the result of an experiment by space aliens from a galaxy far, far away. . . . But, as Behe notes, "Most people, like me, will find these scenarios entirely unsatisfactory, but they are available for those who wish to avoid unpleasant theological implications." Hovering unmentioned over the text is the suggestion that a supernatural, undesigned designer could provide a suitable invisible hand, not to mention the necessary expertise in biochemistry.
Thus, because Behe's argument does not rule out a supernatural design, such that an IC system could be produced by a supernatural designer, Shanks and Joplin feel justified in portraying Behe's argument as one that does require a supernatural designer. Could provide becomes does provide. Yet there remains nothing in Behe's argument that mandates we embrace a supernatural designer. Behe cites the space aliens, gives us his personal opinion that has nothing to do with the logic of the argument, and Shanks and Joplin fail to explain why this option is not valid. Clearly, the insertion of the word "˜supernatural' is sleight of hand on the part of Shanks and Joplin.
It gets worse with the adjective "˜creationist.' Shanks and Joplin fail to use independent criteria to define a creationist and then explain why it is that Behe, an evolutionist, falls into this category. Even if they did go to the trouble of defining their terms in a philosophy journal, it would remain to be seen as to whether their definition was akin to painting a bulls eye (creationist) around an arrow (Behe).
Consider some widely used and standard definitions of creationism.
Dictionary.com defines creationism as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."
Merriam-Webster defines it as "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible."
Essentially the same definition even appears in the scientific, peer reviewed literature:
Creationists are those who believe that God created the universe, and all species alive today, in a geological instant several thousand years ago. The usual motive for creationism is conformity to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesisor some analogous scripture. (Leigh EG Jr. 1999. The modern synthesis, Ronald Fisher and creationism. Trends Ecol Evol. 14:495-498.)
Since these independently derived definitions do not accurately describe Behe, we can borrow from William Dembski's lexicon and note the attempt to paint Behe as a creationist is a fabrication. Shanks and Joplin are not drawing from a widely accepted definition of creationism that was defined independently of Behe and other ID theorists. They simply attach the label because they wanted Behe to be perceived as such. In fact, let's call this the Creationist Fabrication.
So where did the word "˜creationist' come from in their abstract? Did it poof into existence? No, Shanks and Joplin put it there through intelligent design. Let's draw from one of Shanks and Joplin's design questions: For what purpose was it made?
A tantalizing hypothesis is found in the mission statement of the journal where the Shanks and Joplin article is published:
Philo is the only professional philosophy journal devoted exclusively to criticisms of theism and defenses or developments of naturalism.
Since the journal is devoted to debunking theism, it only makes sense that Shanks and Joplin would insist that ID be viewed as "supernatural." And that they label Behe a "˜creationist' is a way to stack the deck to increase the odds their reviewers and readers will agree with them (consider the people behind the journal and the general audience of a journal that is devoted to debunking theism). In other words, it would stand to reason that the readership of Philo have minds that are primed to immediately dismiss Behe's argument once Behe is labeled as a "˜creationist' trying to demonstrate the 'supernatural.'
Suddenly, it becomes clear why they not only chose sentence A over B, but why they began with it.
July 20th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
The only thing more fanatical than a YEC is a NeoDarwinist.
Comment by island — July 20, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
ID need not be considered "supernatural" as long as intelligence is not regarded as "supernatural". We certainly don't regard human intelligence as supernatural. Nor do we regard the intelligence of other mammals as supernatural.
http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm
Beuhler even demonstrates single cultured cells displaying a degree of purposeful behavior. Intelligence as an innate aspect of living matter is the intelligence behind the design of life. Each component of living matter has some limited capacity to make decisions in pursuit of the goal of survival and well being. Thus the entire coordinated system is capable of some limited reorganization to meet internal and environmental challenges. Each generation adds to that reorganization, purposefully and intelligently, rather than "randomly with respect to fitness".
Such a view can never be proved — no more than RM&NS could ever be proved. However evidence that can be interpreted as supporting intelligent self organization will be:
When science determines that adaptive change originates in living systems, the cells, rather than in the genome.
Statistical evidence for the inheritance of acquired adaptations.
Discovery of mechanisms by which biological systems upgrade their genomes to reflect persistent epigenetic adaptation.
Science has already acknowledged that [b]some[/b] non coding DNA is not junk. Eventual recognition that all DNA is functional will add to the evidence of design.
Further evidence of communication and coordinated, purposeful behavior by colonies of bacteria will add to the realization that intelligence is an aspect of life itself, and not necessarily just the product of a brain.
None of the above research will be done by RM&NS Darwinists, and must await a generation of biologists not hostile to the concept of a designing intelligence..
Comment by Bert — July 20, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
The inherent problem with Behes aliens, is that if they are IC themselves (which is very likely) it would indicate they were designed. Therefore, they were designed by an alien that is itself, IC and was designed. Eventually we end up with turtles all the way down. Inevitably, the only way to wriggle out of this from ID is to posit that:
1) The universe is infinite and you can have an infinitely occuring chain of biological alien designers, each designing the one before it.
2) The original designer is supernatural and therefore does not require design itself.
Neither result is particularly useful and it is probable that neither is capable of being falsified either. However, the only way of answering the turtles all the way down problem is to invoke the supernatural designer (2).
Bert:
Care to comment on the ames mutational test yet? I'm just curious though, why is it that evolutionary mechanisms and predictions from a RM&NS model perfectly predict what sort of results we would gain. Yet ID, which if I am understanding it correctly, would posit that mutations were 'directed'. Yet if this is the case, why do bacteria not 'remember' what mutation is required to revert back to a phenotype they require to survive? Some mutational tests have amazingly few revertants and this depends entirely on the frequency of mutation. Here, the mutations causing the reaffirmation of the damaged phenotype are playing statistics: Or the game of chance.
Why does the ames test work so well based on a RM/NS model?
Prove please. I'd be interested in that claim, what is your experimental basis for it and how was it derived? What model organism did you use, prokaryote, eukaryote or ?
Like the ames test?
Again, I cite the ames test as a simple model that falsifies this.
Of what organism? Mycobacterium leprae has most of it's genome, and over 50% of its genes are now completely non-functional. This has been experimentally confirmed by deleting them out and comparing strains of M. leprae that have lost many of these genes between other common laboratory strains. Does this count as a falsification for design?
Odd, I happen to a microbiologist yet I've never heard a single thing like this. Are you talking about quorum sensing for example that certain bacteria use to 'determine' the amount of other bacteria around them? This is hardly 'intelligent' and is really the function of a dose-response behaviour. It's a simple switch from determining low numbers, indicated by correspondingly low concentrations of homoserine lactones (small molecules secreted by bacteria into their surroundings) that activates either a sensor or regulator. This is similar to the ability of nodulating bacteria to recognise flavenoids given off by plants to start an infection thread.
These are not particularly 'intelligent' processes however although I'm interested in how you experimentally derived or proved this was the case.
On the contrary. The singalling and chemical communication systems of Mezorhizobium loti with the plants they infect to nodulate, has been undertaken by such "RM&NS" darwinists and I find it rather insulting you would claim otherwise. Here is but one such example of this work being undertaken by a 'non' design theorist on these very kinds of interactions (between plant and bacterium as well!)
Here.
Care to give me a single paper on this issue in a respected journal from an ID theorist? Where is the experimental verification for your claims?
Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 1:31 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
Aegeri:
Why would you think it is very like the aliens would be IC themselves? I don't see any reason to suppose this. For example, we know that the IC mousetrap was designed by humans. But I do not consider humans as being IC themselves.
You'd have to make the case that IC necessitates an IC cause. And even then, the turtle argument is not as significant as you seem to think it is. Even if one must propose a supernatural designer at some point in the progression, there is no reason to pick this point over that point. For example, a Christian who believed humans are IC might claim that God designed the human who designed the mousetrap. If we are trying to understand the origin of the mouse trap, the origin of the human is a tangential issue.
Anyway, this issue was explored here and here.
What's relevant in this thread is that Shanks and Joplin do not use any turtle argument to rationalize their design of that lead sentence. Instead, they rely on bogus reasoning.
Comment by MikeGene — July 20, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Maybe they decided to say that "intelligent design" was creationism, and Behe was a creationist, because that is what they are to anyone who looks at the origin of "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity".
1. The creationists were using the flagella and the irreducible complexity argument for years before Behe.
2. "Of Pandas and People" — the 1989 textbook that first introduced "intelligent design" as a term — was immediately identifiable, and identified by critics, as a creationist work authored by self-described creationists.
3. Behe's first printed version of the irreducible complexity argument (though not the actual term) first appeared in the 1993 version of "Of Pandas and People".
Behe, a theistic evolutionist? Give me his model for the origin of the flagella. He's given up on his supercell scenario in Darwin's Black Box, and even that involved the special creation of the first cell. Special creation of some biological system = creationist. And Pandas, which he coauthored, was not a theistic evolution book.
Comment by Leon — July 20, 2005 @ 3:28 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Oh but that is the point, the aliens don't have to be entirely IC but bits of them probably end up being that way, such as the way their brains function or their biochemistry. If you ran the explanatory filter on said designing aliens, I'm pretty certain you'd find they would ping as being designed or at least parts of them would.
Aliens are no more a decent explanation than a supernatural creator.
It's still significant because ultimately ID relies on a religious and unfalsifiable designer somewhere down the track. Aliens are equally as unfalsifiable as said supernatural designer and may as well be equivalent. Remember, the ID movement shoot themselves in the foot anyway, because by refusing to talk about the designer they HAVE *no* designer. When you've got no designer you've got worse problems than when you name one.
Wrong, because you make several mistakes in this part that invalidate your logic. The first is you, like most IDists do erroneously, is compare a non-living system to one that is not living. Mousetraps are designed by humans, but they are not IC (You can make a functional mousetrap out of two parts) and do not reproduce/do not function as living organisms. As a result, to determine the origin of a non-living, non-reproducible object like a mouse-trap, car and similar, you must first look for what made it because the inference of design is inherently stronger. This is why you've picked this position obviously, but it's inherently wrong for that very fact as non-biological systems do not have the properties of living ones.
Secondly, in order to determine the origins of said mousetrap, we can look for the methodology that was used to construct it. We can find the evidence of tools, human habitation and other aspects of the non-living mousetrap that easily indicate what it is. Biological systems are nowhere near as simple, for the very fact they reproduce and are capable of change. It's irrelevant to compare non-living systems to living ones.
So what about us? We try to infer design at the moment simply because we want to. At the moment, I think it's worthless unless you can start establishing and making predictions as to the methodology, purpose and nature of the designers. Going back to your mousetrap, I can find a purpose to said mousetrap: To catch small animals. I can find a methodology used to construct said mousetrap by chemical and physical evidence on the wood and metal. In other words, my design inference is stronger because I know about the methodology and purpose that was behind making the original mousetrap. So far, there is utterly no evidence from ID about methodology of these aliens/supernatural designers and there is no evidence as to what purpose we were designed these.
Again, refusing to talk about the designer is a dodge and avoiding the argument, but that facade isn't going to last long.
But you see, I actually think this is rather irrelevant of you because they are technically correct in their argument. Just because they have named the designer in question is a lot further than ID advocates are willing to go, but quite frankly, shouldn't the simple and demonstratable annihilation of one designer put the IDists onto proving said aliens?
But you and I both know that aliens are just as unfalsifiable as a supernatural designer. In the context of the ID movement they know they can get away with either and maintain their tent. The simple fact of the matter is there is no way to falsify (or even prove) either supernatural or natural designers. For all intents and purposes the 'designer' of the ID movement is just as mythical as the supernatural 'God' of the creationists. Shanks and Joplin have made a reasonable assertion.
Finally you say here that:
Not quite. Behe is rejected because his arguments have been found to be deficient and none of the 'IC' systems that he claimed were actually held up under scrutiny later on. That they rip him apart on IDs lack of a designer, which ends up supernatural in either event, isn't their problem. Incidently, when asked for a mechanism of how the creator made the original IC systems?
Now I ask you Mikegene, who does miracles? God or aliens? Who can make things in a 'puff of smoke'? God or aliens. Finally, who said that it requires stopping the laws of physics for a micracle? Behe or Shanks and Joplin? Please do, given Behes own statements explain to me how that isn't creationism, or if you like, design by a clearly supernatural creator.
Unless you can inform me of this physics suspending miracle causing aliens…
Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 3:49 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
If "design" is established then the default positon is that of natural origin, since we know that the cause for every other effect in nature is natural.
Comment by island — July 20, 2005 @ 4:31 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
MikeGene asks:
"Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist?
Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to add the label 'supernatural'?"
They chose to use these labels because they are on the losing side of an argument and they want to end the discussion. It's like when someone is losing a political argument with you and they get frustrated and start calling you a 'fascist', or a 'racist', or some other unpleasant term that ends with an 'ist'. They are saying, "You are evil and stupid, and I am pure and smart, so you better just shut up. End of discussion."
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 20, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
I think MikeGene's point is well-taken: regardless of whether or not IC is sufficient to demonstrate intelligent design, and regardless of whether or not a supernatural designer is required somewhere in the chain of "turtles all the way down," the specific argument Behe is making by arguing for IC does not specifically require supernatural intervention in order to introduce IC into earthly organisms, and therefore Shanks and Joplin overplay their hand in taking Behe to task for failing to make a case for supernatural intelligent design. It may well be that Behe thinks a supernatural Creator did "poof" IC into existence, but to my knowledge he has never claimed to have given verifiable evidence that "poofing" was indeed the mechanism by which the design was actually implemented. It's nice that Shanks and Joplin are prepared to refute such an argument should it ever be presented, however they should not misrepresent the argument Behe is actually making.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 20, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Ahem
Who is misinterpreting what argument again?
Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Ack, the internet ate some of my post. :/
Actually, to be honest the ID advocates haven't given any mechanisms period for pretty much anything. That makes any argument about any designer pretty much useless, because the ID advocates themselves haven't the first clue what it is. With no designer and a refusal to name said designer, people are just filling in the gaps for them.
Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
But what's killing me is that Behe's whole argument for "intelligent" design is flawed from the getgo, because he assumes a definition for natural process that necessarily excludes a natural telic process, which is "deliberate".
This is the same basic thing that I told Dembski right before he cordially uninited me from posting to his blog when I explained that the only way to prove "intelligent" design was to produce a very old alien space-craft with the blue-prints for human construction hanging from the drawing board, otherwise, it requires an unfounded leap of faith to assume that his proof for design in nature was anything more than that!
Comment by island — July 20, 2005 @ 9:08 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Yes, Aegeri, I saw your earlier post that at Hillsdale Behe was pressured into giving his opinion as to the actual mechanism by which flagella were implemented. But let's not overlook the fact that Behe could be wrong in his opinion as to the implementation, without necessarily implying that his argument about design was automatically invalid. Designing a thing, and implementing that design, are discrete issues. If I show you a computer, and express the opinion that it was poofed into existence, I could be wrong about the means of its origination without necessarily being wrong about its having been artificially designed. The point in MikeGene's post is that Shanks and Joplin take Behe to task for failing to prove supernatural design. The case Behe presents does not argue for supernatural design, regardless of whether or not Behe personally believes in a supernatural implementation of that design.
The same standards of fair play must apply to all. Evolutionists who do not want all evolutionary theory to be automatically equated with atheism (on the grounds that this or that famous evolutionist personally espouses atheism) must in return be willing to abstain from the temptation to equate all ID arguments with supernaturalism on the grounds that this or that famous ID proponent personally espouses supernaturalism.
Granted, there are ID-related arguments that do implicitly and unavoidably invoke supernaturalism, e.g. the argument that Nature was designed to support life, or the argument that unguided natural/materialistic processes are incapable of generating intelligent minds. Such arguments are, of course, fair game and deserve to be labelled as intrinsic appeals to supernaturalism. The IC argument is not such a case and MikeGene's point stands. Whether or not the IC argument is sufficient to establish intelligent design in a natural structure, it is definitely not sufficient to establish that an appeal is being made to the supernatural.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 20, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
Aegeri:
No, your point was, "the inherent problem with Behes aliens, is that if they are IC themselves (which is very likely) it would indicate they were designed." You need to show that an IC structure can only be designed by an IC designer. You'd have to make the case that IC necessitates an IC cause. Until you prove these things, your turtles argument fails.
That's your problem "“ you are taking a metaphysical approach and demanding ultimate realities. If we work with your turtle argument, one could argue that the ETI that created life on this planet were in turn designed by God. Unless you can prove this scenario is impossible, your turtle argument again fails.
There are no mistakes in my logic. You have gone off on a tangent while I was addressing your turtle argument. We need to deal with one thing at a time, thus your tangential points can wait.
The bottom line is that you need to establish that IC structures can only be designed by a supernatural, IC designer. Until you prove this, the turtle argument fails.
No, they are not technically correct. But that is beside the point, as you don't seem to understand the point of my entry. I'm trying to figure out why Shanks and Joplin chose sentence A instead of sentence B. I'm using their design question to understand their design. Now, they do not use your turtle argument, Aegeri. While that may be your own personal argument, it is irrelevant in this context and we must dismiss it. Instead of psychically projecting your turtle argument into the minds of Shanks and Joplin, it is a better idea to read what they wrote. The closest thing that comes to a justification for choosing this adjective is the section I highlighted and found wanting.
Your cheerleading is not relevant. None of this explains why they chose sentence A instead of sentence B.
That's interesting, as I get a different read from this. When Behe answers "in a puff of smoke!," it is obvious he is playing with his critic. And when the critic says, "As usual, he was evasive. But I didn't let him get away," I can easily envision someone obnoxiously trying to monopolize the conversation, explaining why Behe toyed with him.
But none of this matters.
The Shanks and Joplin article was written prior to the Spring-Summer 2001. The event you cite did not take place until Nov 2002.
Unless you believe Shanks and Joplin used their psychic powers to foresee this event (since they never mention it), this cannot be the basis for their decision to design sentence A as they did. Clearly, the puff of smoke is thus a Red Herring and therefore flushed into the Hole.
Again, you seem to miss the point. I'm not interesting in further rationalizations to erect the Creationist Fabrication. As I have shown, Shanks and Joplin are not drawing from a widely accepted definition of creationism that was defined independently of Behe and other ID theorists. They are painting bulls eyes around the arrow. You are free to paint too, as it is always easy to cherry pick the paint you need. Heck, would you like to see my paint the creationist bullseye around Shanks?
Comment by MikeGene — July 20, 2005 @ 10:50 pm
July 20th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
I made this point a second time and better, until it was deleted however so I hardly think I am free to paint anything.
Very obviously, the ID 'proponents' live up to their reputation of being unable to debate. This isn't the first time my comments have been deleted here and quite frankly, I'm getting rather tired of it. I suppose your blog does deserve the same poor reputation for allowing 'dissent' as the other ID blogs, which is a shame because I was originally convinced your lot here were a lot better than the other ID charletans.
Incorrect, it's supporting the proposition that Behe is indeed a creationist and that they were correct in their characterisation. Did Behe suddenly change to be a creationist after seeing their article? Maybe it was so convincing he converted on the spot to being a creationist then? Or maybe, just maybe, like comments from Behe above they had a very good reason to suspect that Behe was a creationist. Turns out they were right and you were wrong.
Something that is amazingly common of you lot.
Good day.
Comment by Aegeri — July 20, 2005 @ 11:06 pm
July 21st, 2005 at 12:43 am
Aegeri:
I did not delete any of your posts. I moved two of them to the Hole. I explained why I moved the one, as it doesn't add anything to the question at hand "“ it's off topic (as I showed). I moved the other one because you wanted to spam the thread with a link to some creationist conference.
This whining has no basis in reality. Let's do a reality check.
First, two of Aergeri's posts were moved to the Memory Hole because they strayed significantly off topic. But let's include them in the following analysis.
Not counting this posting, there are 17 postings in the comments section from seven different people.
Here is a breakdown of the number of postings:
Island: 3 postings
Bert: 1 posting
Aegeri: 7 postings
Me: 2 postings
Leon: 1 posting
Stuart: 1 posting
Mark: 2 postings
The censored critic leads the pack in contributions. He has been posting throughout the whole day, with more than twice the number as the next most prolific commentator, and owns 41% of the comments. It gets more interesting if we factor in verbiage:
Island: 3 postings/ 147 words
Bert: 1 posting/ 273 words
Aegeri: 7 postings/ 2,195 words
Me: 2 postings/ 720 words
Leon: 1 posting/ 162 words
Stuart: 1 posting/ 80 words
Mark: 2 postings/467 words
Now let's convert that in % total words:
Island: 4%
Bert: 7%
Aegeri: 54%
Me: 18%
Leon: 4%
Stuart: 2%
Mark: 12%
The censored Aegeri has monolpolized the conversation all day long, contributing more words to the thread than the combined total of the rest of the participants. Don't you think it's a tad silly to act like the victim of censorship when none of your postings were deleted and when most of your 2200 words have nothing to do with the original entry that I posted (even to the point where you felt free to start spamming the thread)?
And you still don't get the point of the essay:
The issue is not whether you personally believe Behe is a creationist. The issue is why Shanks and Joplin chose sentence A instead of sentence B when and where they did. Since the event you build on did not occur until more than a year after Shanks and Joplin wrote the article, it can have nothing to do with their reason for attaching the needless adjective to Behe. It's a Red Herring.
Furthermore, you keep evading the point. I don't care about your attempt to come up with a new reason to fabricate. I have documented the widely used definition of "˜creationism' that was derived independently of Behe (or any ID theorist). In fact, let me add to the list:
From none other than the Glossary from Futuyma
From WordNet® , an online lexical reference system developed by the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton University.
There is no independently derived, widely used definition of "˜creationism' that reads, "a belief that irreducibly complex structures answer Darwin's challenge and thus infers design."
It is clear (to me) that Shanks and Joplin did as you do now "“ paint a bulls eye around an arrow. What further matters is that because Shanks and Joplin neglected to define "˜creationism' in their article, their readers would be more likely to tap into the definition that is found in mainstream dictionaries, scientific articles, and science textbooks. This would strongly suggest Behe was thus misrepresented in a journal devoted to debunking theism.
As an addendum, you might want to consider this blog from Krauze.
It contains an excellent article from philosopher of science Del Ratzsch (a favorite of PvM) that also takes Shanks to the woodshed for the same thing. Ratzsch takes a scholarly look that complements the case that such labeling is a fabrication:
And you want to talk about a joke Behe made???
Comment by MikeGene — July 21, 2005 @ 12:43 am
July 21st, 2005 at 1:28 am
Actually, I should repost Aegeri's link to the Creationist Conference:
Aegeri:
That a creationist speaker criticizes ID at a creationist conference makes no sense if ID = creationism. Apologies to Aergeri for this one, as he has provided yet more evidence that the ID/creationism equation is bogus.
Comment by MikeGene — July 21, 2005 @ 1:28 am
July 21st, 2005 at 4:34 am
Using these labels in this way is a form of religious prejudice – literally; these labels mean that Behe's opinions are being "pre-judged". To demonstrate this, substitute an alternative noun or adjective there – "female biochemist Michael Behe", "black biochemist Michael Behe", "socialist biochemist Michael Behe". "Creationist" is a religious label which evokes precisely the same judgemental impact as the other labels. It should be clearly pointed out as widely as possible that these labels are being used to prejudice debate.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — July 21, 2005 @ 4:34 am
July 21st, 2005 at 10:00 am
Amongst my YEC friends, I am somewhat embarrassed to confess that I'm associated with ID. I'm criticized for advocating the "science alone" approach of ID rather than the "scriptures alone" approach.
I point out to them, that the Christian Scriptures affirm the "science alone" approach from Romans 1:20, thus there is a loophole for creationists to be IDists as well. Sometimes that softens my fellow YECs position, sometimes it doesn't. As you can gather from Purdom's words, ID even in Christian circles, is not always welcome.
From personal experience, even though Intervarsity Press has published Johnson and Dembski's work, a few Intervarsity Christian fellowship staff workers indicated I was not welcome to talk about ID.
Like Paul Nelson, amongst IDists we are willing to confess we are also YECs in addition to IDists, but we, (or shall I say, I) realize that it puts me in the categaory of "unsavory associate" of ID:
Intelligent Design Coming Clean
Dembski writes:
(Yeah, the YEC-IDist make a peculiar fit in each camp. Me and Paul Nelson gotta form a fraternity…..)
The reason Shanks would like to associate Behe with creationism is that it associates Behe with people like Purdom. From my experience, Purdom's attitude turns off lot's of young Christians, not just young non-Chrisitans.
Creationism concludes that there is intelligent design by appealing to the authroity of the Christian Scriptures. ID concludes that there is intelligent design by appealing to science. Though some of the conclusions creationism and ID clearly overlap, the deductive methods are completely different.
At secular colleges, many who are young evangelicals want to study ID for the very fact that its inferences and deductive methods are de-coupled from religious text.
Thus when I teach Creation Science, I teach ID first wtih no reference to the Bible, even among Evangelicals, and that is what they find very interesting.
Rather than waling them through the book of Genesis, I take them through the physics of Barrow, Tipler, Wigner, Belinfante, Morowitz, then show them Privileged Planet. I then show the Unlocking the Mystery of Life. Then inevitably they begin asking about Creation Science and the Genesis account. I tell them which parts of the account would fall out of the scientific method, or ID proper, and which parts would have to be accpeted by faith. I make no bones about where my faith is, but I try to distinguish scientific inferences from religious beliefs.
I point out that the existence of a Super-Intelligence (Flew's term) is scientically reasonable based on Barrow and Tipler and Belinfante's calculations, that it is scientifically reasonable to infer design in biology based on Dembski and Behe's work. I point out that population genetecist refer to a mito-chondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but nevertheless I point out a belief in the Genesis Adam and Eve are ultimately matters of personal faith.
Like had happened to me, many are struggling with religious beliefs which had been handed down to them, which seem at first to have no scientific basis whatsoever. Many are science majors as I was, and thus their natural inclination is to start doubting their faith, and are hoping to find at least some scientific confirmation of their beliefs independent of religious texts and repeated assertions from the pulpit. That may sound harsh, but that's what's in many young science oriented evangelical's hearts.
Thus ID is highly attractive for the very reason it's deductive methods are de-coupled from appeals to the pulpit. Shanks, I think, realizes that associating ID with the negative perception generated by YECs from AiG/ICR will help impede ID's acceptance among those who might otherwise be receptive, like the undecided middle, even among (surprisingly) undecided evangelicals….
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 21, 2005 @ 10:00 am
July 21st, 2005 at 1:41 pm
My experience is that the labels on both sides are *generally* correct, if not justifed by the fact that underlying ideological motivations produce willful ignorance on both sides of the debate, which prevent either from accepting a single valid scientific point that runs contrary to their agenda.
Nobody is being honest if the interpretation of evidence is predetermined by fanaticm that won't allow opinions to be swayed.
I know for a fact that IDists *generally* refuse to accept that hard evidence for design in nature can be no more than that without proof that it is.
I know for a fact that evolutionary biologists *typically* won't under any circumstances accept evidence for purpose in nature.
What good is a debate that has no middle ground?
I'd like to know who enforces Mark's "standards of fair play" that "must apply to all"… because I've got about a million violations that I'd like to report.
Comment by island — July 21, 2005 @ 1:41 pm
July 21st, 2005 at 5:27 pm
IMO, the reason Shank and Joplin poisoned the well right up front was to get their article published in Philo – an accommodation to the editorial bias and readership. The cyanide qualifiers are easily dropped to get the piece published in other, less biased sources. Philo bought, so there you have it. More respectable publications probably wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Comment by Joy — July 21, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
July 21st, 2005 at 11:19 pm
If you go back to the original 1999 article from Shanks and Joplin, published in Philosophy of Science, you'll notice the evolution in action.
Here's the first sentence of the abstract from that article:
See? No "˜creationist' adjective in front of the name. This proves there was never a need for the adjective in the 2001 article, strongly supporting the hypothesis that it was added simply to poison the well among readers already predisposed to debunk theism.
Notice also the 1999 version has the "˜supernatural' in parentheses. By 2001, this is dropped. There is also a clear explosive radiation of the "˜supernatural' label dropping.
1999:
2001:
The last claim, seen in this context, is absolutely hilarious.
Anyway, here is how the game is played.
Repeat after me…
Intelligent Design
Supernatural Intelligent Design
Supernatural Intelligent Design
Supernatural Intelligent Design
SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design
SUPERNATURAL Intelligent Design
SUPERNATURAL (!) Intelligent Design
SUPERNATURAL Design
SUPERNATURAL
SUPERNATURAL
(BTW, no one is ruling this out, mind you.)
SUPERNATURAL
SUPERNATURAL………
Comment by MikeGene — July 21, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:31 am
Hello Mike Gene,
I know you have claimed to be an evolutionist in the past, but are there any areas where you consider yourself non-evolutionary? What I mean is, evolution, to some people, is a nearly universalized concept. All-embracing, absolutized, without dispute, period. Fitting a person with an 'evolutionist' label can thus be as insulting or misleading as to fit someone with a 'creationist' label.
Is linguistic adaptation or 'manipulation' (to use a politically invested word as Mike's tone apparently suggests) an example of evolution? Well, of course Mike is documenting 'change-over-time' in the grammar of certain sentences. But these are examples of 'human selection,' and not 'natural selection' per se, as a biologist, botanist or geologist might use the term.
The 'game' being referred to, is that an example of 'evolution' too?
The 'why' question can only be answered perhaps by Shanks and Joplin themselves. Otherwise we are just speculating at their motives. ID theories have nothing much to say about motives either, except when ID theorists reveal their motives to not speak about motives. The 'how' question is another topic altogether more accessible, as Mike G. demonstrates.
Dr. D. Lamoureux has chosen to label himself an 'evolutionary creationist.' In this way he admits his belief in evolutionary theory (and/or fact) and yet doesn't deny that theism is still at the center/periphery of his being. He doesn't ignore evidence in subscribing to 'creation science.' Instead, he uses his interpretive abilities as a trained biologist, dentist and theologian, to inform his views of origins, meaning, human purpose and teleology. In this case 'theistic evolutionist' and 'creationist' are less far apart.
Super-natural, extra-natural, non-natural, un-natural, post-natural…do these prefixes not all appear rather unbecoming in our current age to the heights and depths of naturalist thinking?
Labels are not always a negative thing.
Curious,
Arago
btw, M. Behe believes in 'creation,' doesn't he?
"when I teach Creation Science, I teach ID first…" – SC
Comment by g arago — July 22, 2005 @ 4:31 am
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:09 am
Hey Mike,
Can you imagine the outcry from Darwinists if everyone who wrote about them tacked on "atheist". Darwinian atheists, Darwinian atheists, Darwinian atheist. Folks like Kenneth Miller would have an aneurism having to qualify himself all the time.
Now I certainly wouldn't want IDists to really do this. I think most ID proponents want a straight up debate without all these tricks. I just mention it to illustrate to the Darwinists how disingenuous arbitrarily conflating ID and creationism is.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 22, 2005 @ 9:09 am
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:04 am
Steve,
Great point. People like Miller would suddenly start making the arguments we are making.
We wouldn't even have to go that far. For example, let's use Aegeri's muddled thinking as a guide. He seemed to think the adjective was appropriate as long as we could come up with a convoluted reason to rationalize it as accurate. Well, in the case of Shanks, we don't need to rely on some "connect-the-dots" thinking – Shanks describes himself as an atheist:
Now, imagine I used the scholarly approach of Shanks and Joplin to write my entry and it began as follows:
We know that sooner or later, a critic would show up to complain about the insertion of this adjective.
Or similar to what you said, what if everyone in the ID community agreed to attach the label "˜atheist' to all the critics who are atheists? That is, we wouldn't have to stoop to the deceptive level of the critics, who conflate for political reasons. Instead, following the lead of Aegeri, we'd just be…… "accurate."
Are the many critics who are atheists willing to have the "˜atheist' label attach their name every time it is mentioned?
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2005 @ 10:04 am
July 22nd, 2005 at 10:09 am
Exactly my point about "fair play." When and if Behe makes an ID argument that does appeal to the supernatural, it will be time to take him to task for appealing to the supernatural. There are ID arguments that can be made that do appeal to the supernatural. The IC argument isn't one of them. It does neither side of the debate any good to arbitrarily conflate disparate issues.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 22, 2005 @ 10:09 am
July 22nd, 2005 at 12:20 pm
Mark,
You make a good point. But people like Shanks will continue as is. Thus, we'll have to continue to put the spotlight on such practice.
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I guess I'll just assume that everyone agrees with my arguments, since no one has rebutted it…
Comment by Leon — July 22, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
July 22nd, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Thanks for reminding me. I rebut it tonight.
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
July 22nd, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Me too. Am I forgotten M. Gene?
"Are there any areas where you consider yourself non-evolutionary?"
I agree with Mark also.
In fact, here I mostly agree with Steve P. too. Though there is no need to repeat DA, DA, da. In fact, I think it may sometimes be AD instead. We must be careful with our qualifiers, but not afraid to be who we are and what we believe. D. Lamoureux is an example who shows his courage or his folly by self-labelling.
Ken Miller is a Darwinian theist or a theistic evolutionist, it seems, according to the labels. Is that accurate to say? Thus Telic Thoughts, in line with Dembskian ID-thoughts, are against him.
Michael Behe is an ID-common descent-non-front-loaded-evolutionary-creationist. Right? :->
Comment by g arago — July 22, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
July 22nd, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Yes. The topic is not M. Gene.
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
July 23rd, 2005 at 12:09 am
Leon:
No, not to "anyone." This perception strongly correlates with those who subscribe to wedge-centrism. But let's go with your reasoning. Are you demanding that we attach the label "atheist" to all critics who are atheists?
Sure. Behe is a theist and an evolutionist. He clarifies things early in his book:
Thus, it is clear that Behe's problem is not with evolution, but with the Darwinian mechanism. That doesn't make him a creationist. After all, several evolutionary biologists (like Margulis and Shapiro) also have a problem with the Darwinian mechanism.
You are fabricating. You've begun with the need to attach the label "˜creationist' to Behe and then cherry-picked from the world the things that support your preconceptions. We can clearly see this because you choose to ignore the various objective definitions I have provided. These definitions is not something I invented – these definitions come from mainstream dictionaries and the scientific community. The definitions satisfy two important criteria: 1. They demonstrate widespread acceptance and; 2. They were derived independently of Behe and the ID proponents.
Your definition is a fabrication because a) it is your own personal definition and b) you clearly derived it in order to label Behe a creationist. Let's take a closer look.
First, it sure likes like the conflation is built into your definition, where you simply assume that ID = special creation (and you don't define "special creation").
Secondly, why did you define it as "special creation of some biological system" instead of "special creation of anything"? The selective choice of "some biological system" tells us you are fabricating.
Thirdly, another sign of your fabricating is your choice of "the flagella." Now let's run with your fabrication. You're telling us that even if Behe accepts universal common descent, and thinks everything evolved, he would be in the same class as Duane Gish, who doesn't think anything evolved, simply because Behe also thinks the flagellum was designed. You've clearly defined a creationist as anyone who does not subscribe to the belief that all of biotic reality originates from a non-teleological cause. This helps us see the other side of your fabrication "“ you've crafted the definition so that it carefully ensnares Behe while conveniently excluding you (assuming you are a standard ID critic).
Sorry, but you have not explained why Shanks and Joplin designed sentence A instead of sentence B. Nor have you explained why the "˜creationist' label in missing in the 1999 article, yet found in the 2001 article (in the journal devoted to debunking theism).
Comment by MikeGene — July 23, 2005 @ 12:09 am
July 23rd, 2005 at 5:03 am
Mike Gene, you are a wonderful avoider of important themes!
A less personal question, that can be answered pseudo-objectively:
Going one step further, if you accept that it is (an example of evolution), does that make you an 'evolutionist'? Some may deem this unimportant or off-topic, but it is directly relevant to the issue of attaching labels, which may or may not be accurate.
M. Behe is an evolutionist to the extent that he accepts evolution in some senses, if not in others. He is a creationist in the sense that he accepts creation in some ways, if not in others. This is why we are at loggerheads! In the 'culture war,' as many, particulary American commentators, are spinning it, I see nothing unusual about calling Behe a creationist, even though it doesn't fit with the definitions posted about 'pure creationism'.
Behe is a non-creationist who believes in creation. Is that better?
Otoh, M. Gene is a front-loaded-evolutionist-non-theist-IDist…in other words, a mouthful of sometimes similar, somtimes contradictory views. Is that in any way accurate? But please don't take that personally. It's meant as an observation of communication about Telic Thoughts (about intelligent design) not as a personal attack.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 23, 2005 @ 5:03 am
July 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 am
O.k., Mike Gene, sorry for the pokes; I didn't mean that you are a mouthful or that you hold contradictory views. It certainly isn't my place or intention to speak of your psychological approach or to judge your platform/case for ID-as/is-science. Attaching a label can help us to understand a person's views, though those labels may not always be entirely accurate.
I wonder if you meant for this thread to be a simple argument over linguistic qualifiers or labels? You said in the OP that "we shall take a closer look at this article," i.e. rather than just the qualifiers or labels. Perhaps the discussion of adding 'creationist' and 'supernatural' has been exhausted linguistically, if not politically?
Comment by g arago — July 23, 2005 @ 10:20 am
July 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
G arago,
You asked if linguistic adaptation or "˜manipulation' an example of evolution. I'd say, yes. In fact, this speaks to the way Leon defines "˜creationism.' We can define evolution simply as change over time, such that anyone who believes things have changed over time is an "˜evolutionist.' Behe is thus clearly an evolutionist. And so too is Duane Gish, Henry Morris, and Jerry Falwell.
The problem here is the definition depends on "to the extent" and "in the sense." From a sociological perspective, why would you want to define and label someone solely by focusing on philosophy and assuming a particular perspective? If you are to label someone, you are clearly trying to communicate to other people. Shouldn't you also consider that?
When Shanks and Joplin label Behe a "˜creationist,' they are communicating an "˜understanding' to their readers. But the "˜understanding' doesn't come from Shanks and Joplin, as they don't spell out their idiosyncratic definition. Therefore, when the audience reads the label, they are the ones who must supply the "˜understanding' that comes from their preconceptions. Since Shanks and Joplin clearly know the common interpretation of "˜creationist,' they know they are labeling him according to the common definitions I have provided. What does that say about them and their "scholarship"
If you are going to "define" someone publicly, then you need to pay tribute to the way your audience can be expected to interpret that label. For example, if the ID community were to define a communist as an atheist with left-wing political views, you and I both know there would be cries of outrage if many critics (like Dawkins) were publicly and consistently labeled "˜communist.' It wouldn't matter if Dawkins was an atheist and had left-wing political views. So why the outrage?
As we also pointed out, there would be cries of outrage if we consistently labeled atheist critics as atheist critics. In fact, let's go further than this. "˜Atheist' literally means "˜without God." Thus, any piece of writing that does not mention God is "atheistic." Think where you can go with this.
Let's look at Shanks some more. His essay that I linked to can't be viewed as "˜atheistic' since it mentions God. On the contrary, it attacks the concept of God, meaning we can define it as anti-theistic. How would you guys like it if my entry began as follows:
Okay with that? Let's go further.
Shanks seems to focus his anti-theism against Christians, or as he labels them, "Christian fundamentalist Taliban-wannabees"
It would thus be more accurate to define him as an anti-Christian. So let my entry again evolve:
Thus, those who want to label Behe a "˜creationist' will likewise expect us to label Shanks an "˜anti-Christian,' right?
Of course, now that Shanks sits in an endowed chair,
maybe he can follow in Dawkins' scholarly footsteps and offer more extensive "scholarly" analysis of the Taliban. Maybe he'll move on to the magazine, American Atheists, and finally let it rip:
Let's wait and see.
G. arago:
Yes, politicians understand very well how labels help us "understand" a "person's views." We see it in action every election cycle.
Comment by MikeGene — July 23, 2005 @ 11:54 am
July 23rd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Steve Paterman said:
"Can you imagine the outcry from Darwinists if everyone who wrote about them tacked on 'atheist'. "
Yes, lets's imagine if an ID advocate were to write an article on, say, Punctuated Equilibrium and they dropped this sentence fragment into it:
"According to atheist Miles Eldridge and Marxist paleontologist Steven Gould, the theory of punctuated equilbrium states that…"
And further let's say that the article went on to claim that the atheist and Marxist backgrounds of Eldridge and Gould are evidence that the theory is false. Think there might a little bit of a howl?
Comment by Stuart Harris — July 23, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
July 23rd, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I do hate to be a bother and interrupt all of this lovely righteous indignation, but here are some various dubious points you folks are relying on.
1. Your hypothetical of labeling Shanks et al. an "atheist" would only make sense if you were complaining about Behe being labeled a "theist". As it is, though, you are complaining about Behe being labeled a "creationist." The opposite of this would to accuse Shanks of another group of origins views, e.g. Darwinism.
2. "Creation" and "creationism" are obviously broader than Young-Earth Creationism — terms like special creation (which, mikegene, just means divine intervention in natural history — which is clearly what Behe believes, he has said over and over that he thinks God is the designer), Old-Earth Creationism, and Progressive Creationism are venerable terms and well-established in the origins debate. By your current logic, we can't call self-identified Progressive Creationists creationists.
3. Historically, "intelligent design," as such, was invented with the 1989 Of Pandas and People, which was identified immediately by the creationism watchers back in 1989-1990 as creationism, basically progressive creationism with a new label. If you want to understand why ID gets called creationism, and ID proponents get called creationists, you have to look at the role played by Pandas. Which, notably, you guys have refused to do.
The reason people take extra pains to identify ID with creationism is that the term "ID" was devised specifically to give the old creationist arguments a respectable-sounding new name that might have better luck in the courts. Pandas, after all, was a textbook intended for public high schools — not, as it should have been, an attempt at revolutionizing the biological research community. Pandas includes discussion of the Edwards v. Aguillard decision in the beginning and ending pages, it was clearly an overriding concern of the authors.
**I** didn't bring up the "wedge" at all, that was much later than Pandas (1998 or something) and pertinent more to the goals of the Discovery Institute IDers (which includes Behe and most of the prominent IDers, of course), but not to the origin of ID. You can call me "Pandas-centric" if you want, but not "wedge-centric."
Again, Behe being a coauthor on the 1993 Pandas doesn't help your case with all this. You are free, of course, to think whatever you want, but if you want to convince outside observers who are coming to this issue afresh, these are facts that have to be dealt with.
Comment by Leon — July 23, 2005 @ 4:09 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Leon:
What people have done is to highlight the double standard that is being employed and how the well gets poisoned. Notice how this got turned into "righteous indignation." This type of rhetoric will help you understand how Behe got turned into a "˜creationist.'
Let's consider Leon's points:
They define Behe as a creationist trying to demonstrate a supernatural intelligent design. Thus, he is also effectively labeled a theist. Your criterion is thus met and you must therefore agree it makes sense to start attaching the label "˜atheist' to Shanks name.
If you want to wiggle out of that one, just return to your own argument:
What you are saying is that they decided to label Behe a creationist because he looks like a creationist. But we can do better than this with Shanks. Not only does he look like an atheist, he is an admitted atheist. So you should have no problem with anyone attaching the label atheist to his name, as it follows from your logic.
Actually, as I explained above, "˜anti-theist' would be more accurate. Better yet would be "˜anti-Christian.' Would you have a problem with any of this?
Look Leon, I already demonstrated that you are fabricating. Your reply attempts to rescue your fabrications with more evidence of fabricating. What do I mean? While you stubbornly insist on labeling Behe a creationist (by ignoring the problems with your position), you start singing a different tune when people raise the idea of labeling Shanks an atheist. That you lean toward the double standard is further evidence you are fabricating.
As you said, "self-identified." If someone wants to identify herself as a special breed of creationist, then she has given us permission to label her as such.
Your sense of history is absurdly myopic. The design arguments have been with us for more than 2500 years. They did not pop into existence in 1989.
This is the type of rationale that appeals to conspiracy theorists "“ selectively chosen examples of guilt by association.
What do we know? We know that Behe accepts evolution and does not self-identity as a creationist. We know that there are several definitions of "˜creationism' that demonstrate its widespread nature and were also derived independently of Behe. Behe fails to map to these definitions. We also know that Behe's signature argument does not depend on acceptance of creationism (even your watered down version) prior to formulating the argument or after agreeing with the argument. We know that creationists have serious problems with intelligent design. We know that Behe is skeptical of the Darwinian mechanism of evolution, like Margulis, but unlike Margulis, he thinks the property of IC infers design.
It is this skepticism of Darwinism and the inference to design that is sufficient for Behe's inclusion in Pandas. Here is your logical fallacy. Just because creationists are skeptical of Darwin's mechanism doesn't mean all skeptics of Darwin's mechanism are creationists. Behe's "connection" is thus explained by his skepticism, not a conspiracy.
Since I have never read Pandas, I did some internet checking. Contrary to your claim, Behe is not the co-author and you failed to mention the book also relies on the work of Michael Denton. Denton is clearly not a creationist. His 1980s "Theory in Crisis" argument has more in common with Plato and Aristotle than it does with Henry Morris and Duane Gish. Yet because creationists were drawn to the argument does not transform the argument into a "˜creationist' argument. It's on this point that your whole argument collapses.
Let's take your conspiracy theory at face value and assume creationists came up with "intelligent design" as a Trojan Horse for creationism. Design arguments have a long tradition that stretches back thousands years. What this would mean is that the creationists, who never attempted to formulate a design inference (as explained in the excerpt by Ratszch), suddenly realized the political potential of using these arguments. So what?
Let's consider a hypothetical. Imagine there is a social theorist out there who has been arguing in the school of some traditional social theory, A. One day, some Republicans realize that theory A would be very useful in the political campaigns. Does this mean that suddenly, social theory A becomes a Republican theory? It does only to those in the political realm.
The problem with your conspiracy theory, Leon, is that the design arguments were not invented by creationists. And just because creationists began to suddenly realize their power and utility does not mean they magically become creationist arguments. We can see this clearly from the simple fact that acceptance of Behe's and Dembski's argument does not justify further acceptance of the rest of the things that are supposed to be in the Trojan Horse. Once again, you need to deal with the fact that you don't have to be a creationist in order to propose that IC infers ID, nor do you have to become a creationist if you do infer ID from IC. The Pandas argument (taken at face value) is nowhere near powerful enough to overcome these facts. And once you factor in the other things we know (as listed above), it's clear you are fabricating. In fact, you basically come out and admit it:
So people identify ID with creationism for political reasons. That the template of your argument is inherently political (where one becomes political in opposing something that is political) renders your fabrication crystal clear. You think you need to label Behe as such because you've already defined Behe as part of a creationist political plot. That's why you can ignore the fact that Behe is an evolutionist who does not self-identify as a creationist. That's why you shun mainstream definitions found in mainstream dictionaries and scientific literature. That's why you are forced to turn to watered-down, idiosyncratic definitions. That's why you ignore the fact that Ronald Numbers does not factor Design into the history of creationism. That's why you ignore the fact that Henry Morris does not factor Design into the history of creationism. That's why you ignore the fact that Design arguments are 2500 years old. That's why you ignore the fact that Creationists distance themselves from ID. That's why you failed to tell us Denton's arguments were in Pandas. That's why you'll ignore the fact that you looked for escape hatches when it came to using your logic to label atheist critics as atheist critics. That's why you can ignore the fact that you don't have to be a creationist to propose ID. That's why you ignore the fact that you don't have to be a creationist once you accept an ID argument.
You ignore these facts because you are cherry picking. You are cherry picking because you are fabricating. You are fabricating because you are not part of an objective analysis; you are part of a political compaign. Politicians label and their labels are often fabrications.
So yes, you are right. Shanks and Joplin label Behe a "˜creationist' for political, not scholarly, reasons. Their first sentence sends an "unmentioned" message to their readers that goes beyond "Behe=Gish=Falwell." It sends this political message "“ "if you agree with anything Behe says, you are helping him get religion in the schools." Factor in the reviewers and readership of a journal devoted to debunking theism, and you not only make a friendly audience, but one that is predisposed to lap up your arguments.
I'm always amazed that the critics have been so willing to flush away their credibility on this issue. By insisting that we all see Behe's arguments in the light of his supposed politics and biases, we're they so dumb or arrogant to think that no one would reflect the very same approach back on them? Did they think they could engage a perceived political debate by not becoming political themselves? Did they really think they could poison the well without getting their hands dirty?
Look at Shanks. Because it has become clear to more and more people that he is politicking, fewer and fewer people hear him speak as the Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences. Instead, more and more view him as someone campaigning for their candidate. And the American people are extraordinarily cynical about their politicians. Don't the critics understand this?
Comment by MikeGene — July 24, 2005 @ 11:26 am
July 24th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
Hello Telic Thinkers,
I wrote an elequent post (so I humbly imagine it) earlier today, that addressed Mike Gene's universalist evolution-ism ("We can define evolution simply as change over time, such that anyone who believes things have changed over time is an "˜evolutionist.' Behe is thus clearly an evolutionist. And so too is Duane Gish, Henry Morris, and Jerry Falwell.") and also even tipped a hat to Leon's misunderstanding of (insensitivity to) 'special creation.' But it got erased and I hadn't saved it, as things sometimes go in this e-world. Then I had to run off for some exercise and only now can I re-attend to the conversation. Ahhh…but the exercise was good and it didn't rain for more than a few minutes, not that any of this has to do with evolution or change-over-time or telic thinking anyway.
Double standards and wells gelling poisoned (pun-licious) are common fare in ID vocab and politicing. I'm surprised how easy it is to adopt political strategies of ID thinkers these days. If telic thoughts were instead non-politickal I would be impressed.
But they were invented by those who believe in Creation, right? This is a yes/no question for the psychologists and non-origin(s) scientists out there.
I'm confused now about whether this thread seeks to know/prove if Behe is a 'creationist' or instead if labels should be faithfully applied to atheists or anti-theists who also use the term 'evolution' in their vocabularies.
Let's see what Behe says on the issue:
But 'common descent' is a 'common' component of evolutionary theories. Isn't it? So there we have a SWIRL effect where some aspects of evolution are accepted while others are unthankfully shuffled out the door with dissent. Dembski won't say which forms of evolution he accepts and which he rejects; this is obviously telling us something.
O.k., then you should feel free to accept my labelling of Behe above. "Behe is a non-creationist who believes in creation." That's o.k. though, since I too believe in 'creativity,' 'creativeness' and creation, though I am a neo-evolutionist (certianly not an American creationist) and a 'neo-IDist' in that I don't accept the monopoly of evolutionary thinking (as Mr. Gene does and as do many, many others) or the claims to 'REVOlution' of the IDM. This has been true, as has Behe's creationistic aspects/sympathies, for several years.
Yes, but "intelligent design," as in the IDM, are not. Right? 2500 seems a wonderful number for biolgists and legal scientists to banter about. Otherwise this blog would not exist.
This is certainly true, fact, proven. Though I fail to see how it does not merely demonstrate that (in a non-personal sense), Mike Gene is a non-creationist who believes in ID. Propose ID scientifically without resorting to 'poof' or front-loading, and without saying it has implications (as Behe has said) for 'all humane studies' and we'll be getting somewhere significant.
Mike Gene, aren't you a Canadian, after all? Living in America. Why respond to US politics in such a way?
Don't feed into it.
Arago
p.s. Please don't put Plato and Aristotle in the same sentence with Henry Morris and Duane Gish in the future, it is cringe-ful just to do it once, let alone in my thoughts
Comment by g arago — July 24, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
Even this sentence applies a label of pseudo-universalism – 'the critics'. Can we not be fairer and/or more aware of diversity in our communication? Not every theist will accept ID and not every atheist accepts evolution (biologically, even if not just as c-o-t). Please realize this and don't throw stones! There is no 'bridge between science and theology' as WAD-Texas-Kentucky suggests ID might be.
Comment by g arago — July 24, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 6:00 pm
(part 1, this is a little long)
mikegene,
I don't see where all this venom is coming from. I'm not the one who invented all this stuff. You accuse me of being political, as if that were a bad thing when a group is pushing pseudoscience in the public schools, but *I* didn't start the politics. The Intelligent Design Movement has been political from the get-go, and the get-go was "Of Pandas and People". It's not my fault that you are just now finding this out, and it's too bad the rhetoric of ID movement was apparently successful in misleading you about this, among many other people.
I wasn't the one who made the first work systematically advocating "intelligent design" a public high school textbook. A textbook for goodness sake — so much for being a scientific research movement. And it's not me making this claim about Pandas being first work of "intelligent design" in the modern sense. It's the IDers themselves. Here's Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that invented "intelligent design" and produced Pandas:
Online at the Wayback copy of William Dembski's website: http://tinyurl.com/9xtg6)
Here's Thomas Woodward, the very pro-ID historian of the ID movement:
And it wasn't me that defined intelligent design as thinly-disguised special creationism, it was Pandas:
I didn't make Behe give an enthusiastic endorsement of Pandas, as he does right on the Foundation for Thought and Ethics website: http://www.fteonline.com/pandas.htm
It is true that Behe is, for reasons unknown, not listed as an author on the 1993 edition of Pandas, but any serious examination of the question shows that he was. Thomas Woodward, in Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, says:
A recent newspaper account where Behe was interviewed says:
Comment by Leon — July 24, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
(part 2 of 2)
If you actually look at the biochemistry chapter of Pandas (chapter 6, pp. 136-147), it becomes clear that Behe wrote about half of the chapter for the 1993 edition, namely the pp. 141-147 on blood-clotting. Compare these two quotes from Pandas and Darwin's Black Box:
Pandas:
Darwin's Black Box:
As for why Behe is not listed as an author on the 1993 Pandas, I'm not sure. It would be a bit harder to give Pandas a neutral endorsement of Pandas as "top-notch" scholarship, if the endorser is also an author.
Shanks et al. probably didn't know that Behe was a coauthor on Pandas, that seems to have come out in 2003, but any good creationism watcher would know about the rest, particularly since the Pandas "intelligent design" concept was immediately identified as creationism in disguise, in many critical reviews between 1989 and 1995.
I know you'd like to try to keep Behe above the politics and the "creationism's trojan horse" stuff, but Behe involved himself from very early on. In fact, he continues to involve himself, he is testifying as an expert witness in defense of Pandas in the Pennsylvania case about the constitutionality of ID in public schools. Looks like yet more interesting revelations are coming out of that. As it turns out, the "intelligent design creationism" label was, in fact, highly appropriate after all:
You can't blame the anti-ID people and their (apparently spot-on) biases for any of this, this is the Intelligent Design Movement out in the real world, as opposed to some nice minimized, toned-down, restricted version on the internet.
Comment by Leon — July 24, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
I can see both halves of my recent comment, but the first half says it's "awaiting moderation," probably it got flagged by the computer as too long or too many links. So, that's where part 1 of 2 is if you can't see it.
Comment by Leon — July 24, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
July 25th, 2005 at 10:29 am
G. arago:
The thread is about understanding why Shanks and Joplin chose sentence A instead of sentence B. Some people argue they were simply trying to be accurate, but I have shown that explanation to be incoherent. However, since they are concerned about "accuracy," the issue of labeling atheist Shanks as atheist Shanks comes up. Those who want to label Behe get uncomfortable when their own methods are extended in other places it seems.
When you publicly label some as X, don't you have an epistemic responsibility to consider how others are likely to interpret X?
Leon:
That doesn't make him a coauthor. That would make him a contributor. That Behe probably wrote pp. 141-147 doesn't mean he is in charge of pages 1-140 and whatever follows page 147.
Leon:
Conspiracy theorists typically view the supposed conspirators purely in a sinister light. In this case, Behe may actually [gasp] believe ID is not inherently religious and has scientific support. If someone truly believed that, that person might actually also think there should be a little room at the public school table for discussion of such things.
Leon, do you think Behe is a liar who knows he is a closet creationist trying to get religion into the schools and THAT'S what he is all about? Don't bother replying anymore in this thread until you answer this question.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2005 @ 10:29 am
July 25th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Thanks for addressing the 'why' without the 'how'. One simple question remains for M. Gene: does M. Behe believe in CreatioN? Please answer this question!
This would help answer the repetitive (psycho-political) question:
Why such extremist yazik (language)?
No, you don't. And 'resposibility' is not a scientific term, just so we're not masquerading. It would be impossible to consider everyone's likely interpretations.
In fact, the label 'creationist' fits Behe given the culture war scenario, even if he denies it in certain cases. After he tried to speak for 'all humane sciences' without being a 'humane scientist' himself, his 'expert' integrity is legitimately called into question. And since Dembski is an obvious 'creationist' given that he is employed by an American Seminary, the targets of protection and exploitation are greatly reduced.
But being a Canadian, I would have thought M. Gene would rather avoid the 'war' scenario and rather speak diplomatically hoping for a practical resolution to the problem.
Actually, I was quite surprised to see the similarity between the passages from Pandas Thumb and DBB. Over three years, it wasn't really much of an improvement on Behe's part, but a rather uncreative 'evolution' of the language to express the exact same ideology. Not much 'progress' there, imo, just a basic repeat of the same thing.
To support Mike and Steve, ironically, I don't entirely disagree with labelling those anti-idists who are intent on labelling neo-creationists at every possible opportunity. The media may support both sides equally if they choose. I wonder though how Mike, Guts, Steve and Deuce would prefer to be labelled, if not collectively then in their own particular ways. Is this site about Telic Thoughts its own microcosm of ID's 'Big Tent' ideology?
However, in following the trend of certain respondents responding only to what pleases them and not to other direct questions or suggestions, likely we won't see such disclosure of views.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 25, 2005 @ 1:39 pm
July 25th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
G. arago:
Sure. In fact, all Christians believe in Creation. Their theology helps define the relationship between God and Nature as that of Creator and Creation. If this is the justification for labeling Behe a "˜creationist,' then why label him "˜creationist' instead of "˜Catholic' or "˜Christian'? Belief in creation hardly seems relevant given there are Christians who accept ID, Christians who do not accept ID, non-Christians who accept ID, and non-Christians who do not accept ID.
Look, if you can document that you have a history of labeling people like Shanks as atheists, and people like Falwell as evolutionists, I'll concede you are standing on principle. But if you are selectively rationalizing watered-down definitions, you are politicking. At the very least, that's the impression you give us.
Experience arguing with so many critics of ID. Are you under the impression that it would be rare for a critic of ID to think Behe is liar?
When I asked, "When you publicly label some as X, don't you have an epistemic responsibility to consider how others are likely to interpret X?," you replied:
There is no need to consider "everyone's" likely interpretation. You just consult the sources that I did "“ mainstream dictionaries and assorted scientific sources. Since these sources tell us how most people interpret "˜creationist,' when you label Behe a creationist, without making it clear you are relying on an idiosyncratic definition, most people will interpret you to be saying that Behe conforms to that common definition. Sorry, but when you publicly speak, you do have a responsibility to consider how others are likely to interpret your definition. Otherwise, you are attacking our very ability to communicate.
Given the "culture war scenario," how shall we label his critics? It can't be important to label just one side. Or is it?
Done that. Been there.
Here
If you have a direct question that you'd like answered, it's best to keep it short and sweet and simply ask it.
You'd have to ask Plato and Aristotle. And I doubt they invented it.
Comment by MikeGene — July 25, 2005 @ 10:21 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 12:07 am
mikegene,
You are replying to the "Part 2 of 2" post. I can't tell if you could see the first half of my previous two-part post. It begins, "part 1, this is a little long."
I couldn't see Part 1 on another computer, but while I'm logged in I can see it and it says it is "awaiting moderation." I just want to make sure you have responded to the whole thing before I reply. You don't seem to realize how Pandas defines ID, and you don't seem to realize that Behe gave Pandas an endorsement as "top-notch." These are points covered in part 1 of the 2 parts, I should let you respond before I reply.
Comment by Leon — July 26, 2005 @ 12:07 am
July 26th, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Here's Leon's Part 1:
(part 1, this is a little long)
mikegene,
I don't see where all this venom is coming from. I'm not the one who invented all this stuff. You accuse me of being political, as if that were a bad thing when a group is pushing pseudoscience in the public schools, but *I* didn't start the politics. The Intelligent Design Movement has been political from the get-go, and the get-go was "Of Pandas and People". It's not my fault that you are just now finding this out, and it's too bad the rhetoric of ID movement was apparently successful in misleading you about this, among many other people.
I wasn't the one who made the first work systematically advocating "intelligent design" a public high school textbook. A textbook for goodness sake — so much for being a scientific research movement. And it's not me making this claim about Pandas being first work of "intelligent design" in the modern sense. It's the IDers themselves. Here's Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that invented "intelligent design" and produced Pandas:
Online at the Wayback copy of William Dembski's website: http://tinyurl.com/9xtg6)
Here's Thomas Woodward, the very pro-ID historian of the ID movement:
And it wasn't me that defined intelligent design as thinly-disguised special creationism, it was Pandas:
I didn't make Behe give an enthusiastic endorsement of Pandas, as he does right on the Foundation for Thought and Ethics website: http://www.fteonline.com/pandas.htm
It is true that Behe is, for reasons unknown, not listed as an author on the 1993 edition of Pandas, but any serious examination of the question shows that he was. Thomas Woodward, in Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design, says:
A recent newspaper account where Behe was interviewed says:
Comment by MikeGene — July 26, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Leon:
I was just pointing out that you were fabricating for political reasons.
I didn't say you invented anything. Conspiracy theorists don't usually invent things. They tend to read their conspiracy theory into things by reading too much "between the lines," while ignoring things that don't fit.
It's not necessarily a bad thing. But it is something important to notice. If you are political, then you have sacrificed your objectivity and open mind. I'll say more on this.
Yes, I am just finding this out. Like I said, I have never read or seen Pandas. It sure does look fishy and adds to the credibility of your complaints. You also make a good point about introducing "intelligent design" in a public high school textbook. So let's take your argument at full force "“ creationists came up with the term "˜intelligent design' as part of a plan to get creationism into the public schools. Does this justify Shanks' freely chosen decision to label Behe a "˜creationist'? Does this justify labeling any proponent of ID as a creationist?
They key seems to be the way the creationists originally defined intelligent design. And you provided us the key. You wrote,
Now compare this to the way Christopher Wills, a professor of biology from UCSD, and skeptic of ID, explains a way to test ID:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=136
Thus, an ID skeptic scientist would accept a "sudden discontinuity" as evidence for ID, while creationists define ID as forms of life that appear "abruptly." In other words, the creationist and the scientist are saying the same thing. And there is nothing atypical about this. Over the years, I have asked ID skeptic scientists what type of data they would accept as evidence for ID. Many come up with excuses not to answer the question, but among those who answered, the majority argue we need to find something Darwinian evolution could not explain.
So look how the stage has evolved. Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that something that posed a real challenge to evolution would constitute evidence for ID. This is why skeptics have spent tremendous amounts of energy/time trying to debunk the arguments of Behe and Dembski. But if one tries to come up with evidence that would be acceptable to many on both sides of the aisles, the politicking turns this into a "fingerprint" of being part of a sinister conspiracy. The effect, intended or unintended, is to shut down any serious investigation that would involve an analysis around such themes.
But it gets worse that this. Those following the ARN board will notice that I was recently accused of being a creationist because I offered a very gentle criticism of Darwinian theory. It takes very little to trigger the "creationist" accusation. Since skepticism of any part of the Darwinian theory can be labeled as "˜creationism,' and "˜creationism' is viewed as a threat to Science, then the politicking of the ID critics works to gradually convert Science into Dogma. That is, the cultural and political environment evolve to a point where criticism of Darwinian theory is viewed as an attack on science itself. Thus, unless one wants to attack science, they better not criticize Darwinian theory. This, in turn, simply creates niches for waves and waves of new wedges.
So let's get back to Shanks. We've established that he labeled Behe as "˜creationist' for political reasons. His objective is to set the context of Behe's argument in political terms. It's like when Paul Gross said we first must understand the ID movement before considering the ID arguments.
Behe's IC argument is essentially an argument for "sudden discontinuities." He and Christopher Wills are on the same page. The only differences is that Behe thinks he has examples and Wills does not agree. But if Behe did succeed in convincing Wills he has examples of "sudden discontinuities," Wills would acknowledge evidence for ID. But would that turn Wills into a creationist? And if Wills continued to work with ID, would that mean he is now part of the plot to get ID taught in the schools?
Now, at the time when Behe wrote Pandas, he may have seen evidence for ID ("sudden discontinuities") everywhere and this would overlap with creationism quite a bit. But by the time he wrote DBB, he was convinced of evolution. The responsible thing for Shanks to do was to separate Behe's concepts from the political movement. Only then can we trust that Shanks is making an effort to be objective.
If you insist on linking the arguments with the political movement, then no one can trust that you are taking issue with the arguments divorced from the movement. And it doesn't help to complain about the political movement in one essay, while trying to be "objective" in another. The moment you engage in the political battle is the moment you cease being objective. When Shanks and Joplin label Behe a "˜creationist' for political reasons, their first sentence sends an "unmentioned" message to their readers that goes beyond "Behe=Gish=Falwell." It sends this political message "“ "if you agree with anything Behe says, you are helping him get religion in the schools." That changes the dynamic behind Shanks skepticism.
It's even worse if we follow the lead of equating ID with creationism and then use a watered down definition of creationism that equates it with theism/religion. At that point, atheistic skeptics (scientist or not) are no longer qualified to pass objective judgment on ID. For Shanks, Behe is not arguing for ID, he is trying to convert Shanks to Christianity. Shanks will therefore respond accordingly. The same goes with people like Ken Miller and George Murphy "“ they too become disqualified. For them, it's their theology that tells them God acts differently. You might want to insist that we need to consider the arguments of the critics, but if we can't tease apart the concept of ID from the politics of ID, the same holds true for the critics. They can't tease apart the concept of ID from the politics of ID, because they know if they ever acknowledged a valid point somewhere among the ID arguments, they fear this admission would feed into the politics of ID. Thus, the political dimension dictates the public analyses, whether they know it or not.
If you insist we all view Behe as part of a political movement, then the critics must likewise must viewed as part of the political reaction. The community of critics simply becomes people opposed to the "Religious Right," atheists reacting to God-belief and "fundamentalism," and other religious people with different theologies.
Finally, let's return to your interest in Pandas. You seem to overlook the fact that even if we grant the full force of your argument, there are many of us who consider and propose ID without being part of some educational plot. How did this happen? If the creationists came up with the term "˜intelligent design' and began to define it as Behe and Dembski have done, they themselves have uncoupled ID from creationism. And they have done it in a way that they will never be able to recover ID as creationism if that was ever their intent. Because they tapped into the design argument that has existed for 2500 years, they have tapped into an older, larger stream of thought that is more than able to exist independently of creationism. Why do you think the real Creationists are complaining and criticizing ID? They may have originally bought into the idea that you could first get people to accept ID as the crucial stepping stone to creationism, but they are starting to figure out that was never really in the cards. When you begin to understand this, you'll see that your concern with Pandas is a point of trivia. Even if your thesis is true, you'll eventually have to come to terms with the fact that this merely means "˜creationists' opened Pandora's Box when they jettisoned most of their positions and made it all about detecting the fingerprints of mind.
Comment by MikeGene — July 26, 2005 @ 2:44 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Regarding the fabrication claim, it is of interest that Larry Caldwell was able to effectively win a libel lawsuit (it did not go to court, but he got what he wanted) by fighting over the label of "creationist." This could set an important precedence, in that if Shanks and Joplin or anyone else attempts such smears in the future, they may well face a lawsuit, and the ID community is rich with eager lawyers.
Just something for the Darwinists to consider if they pull another "Shanks, Joplin, or Eugenie Scott" maneuver. Mike Behe could sue for libel. I somewhat hope he will to force the Shanks and Joplins of the world to stop with their misrepresentations.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 26, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Thanks for the quote, Leon, though I still think you are misguided about what (you think) 'special creation' means. Perhaps it just doesn't fit with your own 'science' and/or 'theology'. Nonetheless, it's helpful to know you've got the IDM pegged for what its roots are, if not what they will be.
Please note, Mike Gene, the words 'present use,' so that appealing to Aristotle and Plato (as in 'intelligent design' – find me a quote with either using those two concepts together, please!) are no longer available to you (c'mon really). Instead, it may be your own version of ID, which I am not evaluating by saying this, that you are highlighting, rather than ID as the IDM presents it. If your version of 'intelligent design' is more scientific than it is political, I'm sure it will be worth something someday, teleologically speaking.
While thumbing again through Darwin's autobiography today, I noticed the insistence of 'Mr. Huxley' regarding,
Who makes claims like this other than silly scientists, stuck in some modernistic self-serving versions of claiming absolutes and pseudo-objectivities?
Mike Gene, sorry, friend. But you're the one who lives in the USA! I don't even side with Leon on this topic, but I just wish you would stop flinging 'conspiracy theorist' and 'politicker' mud. (Goodness! I've just looked at your 'about us' link from above and it even says 'political advocacy' there!) I simply called Michael Behe a 'non-creationist who believes in creation' or, in more specific or useless terms, an 'ID-common descent-non-front-loaded-evolutionary-creationist.'
M. Behe believes in both creation and evolution. Why avoid these labels or refer to his ballot box views?
We've gotta get over this hump. M. Gene, you've been putting forth some actual science (do other scientists call it that?) on your website, and I can only imagine that you are seeking other channels for publication of your ID-as/is-science views. Well, then let's hope that if/when such ideas are accepted they will go beyond politics to actually convince scientists they should be adopted into practise and theory.
Not really, otherwise M. Gene has also sacrificed any claim to being 'objective'. Btw, post-modern sciences still maintain they are purely 'objective'? (Physicists or mathematicians may feel excluded from that pun.) Someone related to ID should tell Donna Haraway that.
Yes, now we're getting it! "Creationists originally defined intelligent design." Saved for posterity!
I didn't understand this, please explain. Are you trying to separate the two as if 'creationism' was not ideologized by theists or religious persons? Maybe you are seeking higher ground somewhere here…
As for labels, well, let's throw in the 'concordist' label too. IDists are often concordists (though some don't like to discuss the importance of hermeneutics when pressed on the issue). I wouldn't have complained if S&J had chosen that instead of 'creationist,' though it likely doesn't suit their vocabularies the same. This way, it could be better understood how/why the vast majority of 'theistic evolutionists' or 'evolutionary creationists' reject the ('creationist') sect that is known as ID. Big tent ID theorists who are not creationists or theistic evolutionists should not feel offended since they are still part of an entertaining circus!
O.k., Mike Gene, I will ask a short and sweet question: do you believe in 'creation'?
To follow it up with another: what (does Behe think) caused and what are the effects of those 'sudden discontinuities' you refer to as the essence of IC=ID?
Hmmm…the last point of MG's message makes me wonder if we should all become philosophers of mind. On second thought, maybe I'll just keep my day job. Dennett, Dennett.
Arago
p.s.
Yes, well, actually I'm quite sensitive to your defensiveness and need for pseudonymous communication. But if the label fits sometimes a person's just got to wear it! Do you witness how Cordova flings labels like nobody's business?
p.p.s. personal pet peeve: 'stages' don't evolve, just as literature and language don't. They are human-made things. But don't tell Dembski that!
(Folks, he just doesn't get it and thinks this is endearing. When Salvador publishes something on ID, surely many will stand and pay attention.)
Comment by g arago — July 26, 2005 @ 5:57 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
Hey Mike Gene,
Now, after reading your second link to 'Read the label' I can take back my suggestion that you are a 'front-loaded-evolutionist-non-theist-IDist.'
Actually, I once thought you might be Paul Nelson in disguise until the word/label 'agnostic' came up.
You call yourself an 'Intelligent Design Evolutionist' (IDE) and I can respect the fact that you've labelled yourself.
Thanks for clarifying,
G.
Comment by g arago — July 26, 2005 @ 6:12 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Hey Mike,
Will the fabrications never end? Since Michael Ruse is one of the more "balanced" Darwinists, I was really surprised to hear that he is calling his new book, _The Evolution-Creation Struggle_. From the title one would expect the book to be pretty short because it would necessarily have to leave out all those who accept evolution, in principal, but reject the adequacy of Darwinian formulations. That would leave out several of the major ID proponents.
Comment by Steve Petermann — July 26, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
July 26th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
G. arago:
Did I just move from Canada?
Hey, those labels are at least as accurate as labeling Behe as creationist. If we're going t label, everyone gets a label or two. Fair is fair, after all.
Sure. The concepts and arguments are drowned out by the politics. I just explained how this works.
Why label when one should simply consider the arguments? If you label, you can't simply consider the arguments. The label casts is long shadow over everything.
"Other channels for publication?" Er, that would be labeled as "The Wedge." LOL. Just look what happened to the first (and last) editor who allowed an explicit ID paper to be published. What was that? We're supposed to ignore this, but not ignore Pandas???
For the sake of argument, I was granting Leon's argument at full force. And even if he is right, it only comes in handy for Trivia Pursuit and the Judge Judy Show.
All Christians believe in Creation. Their theology helps define the relationship between God and Nature as that of Creator and Creation. If this is the justification for labeling Behe a "˜creationist,' then why label him "˜creationist' instead of "˜Catholic' or "˜Christian'? Belief in creation hardly seems relevant given there are Christians who accept ID, Christians who do not accept ID, non-Christians who accept ID, and non-Christians who do not accept ID.
Look, if you can document that you have a history of labeling people like Shanks as atheists, and people like Falwell as evolutionists, I'll concede you are standing on principle. But if you are selectively rationalizing watered-down definitions, you are politicking. At the very least, that's the impression you give us.
Sure, let's really let it rip. Sooner or later, we may finally reach Dawkins Land (after all, he was only the lead endorser of Forrest&Gross's analysis of the conspiracy). Instead of labeling Behe a Creationist, Catholic, or Concordist, why not label him as being worse that a child molester. He did after all, raise his children to be CATHOLICS (brrrr)! And while we're at it, maybe we can get the NCSE to start selling Darwin Fish again.
Mike Gene's not the topic. I told you, some day I'll blog more about myself.
He thinks God is the designer.
Are you talking about the atheistic conspiracy theorists?
Evolution = change over time. Everything evolves.
And will you label yourself for us?
Comment by MikeGene — July 26, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
July 27th, 2005 at 3:32 am
No, I wasn't considering that DI document when I suggested you to publish your potential science of ID. Ground shaking, revolution-making scientific 'progress' needn't so carefully dance around scientific credibility and collegial acceptability. Who cares what you're labelled; if it's publishable then just do it!
Yes, I don't mind. Actually, it's above already somewhere in this thread.
I'm a neo-evolutionist, neo-IDist, although of course there are other suitable labels as well. It's just that no one else (that I'm yet aware of) fits this category and so I go it somewhat alone, for now. This is why Dembski avoids me and won't answer simple questions. And also I've told him it will eventually trump him and his movement. And this is also why x-evolutionists, like Rock and RBH, Krebs and mturner at ARN, have had such a hard time dealing with what I say about evolution, creation, intelligent design and other concepts/percepts related to origins, meaning, human purpose and teleology. I was on this track before I'd even heard of the IDM or IDTs, but ironically, what I'm working on gets to a stage of the wedge fantasy where IDists have yet feared to tread.
E.g. Human-made versus non-human-made things. What's the difference as far as the dancing terms are concerned?
This is rather Dennett-like, or something T. de Chardin might write. On the other hand, it is also ridiculous, a mere remnant of neo-Enlightenment absolutism to suggest everything evolves. More like the Eminem Show than reality!
Or we could bring in "The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill" and speak about her song "Everything is Everything." That's fine too. (It's really quite wondeful!)
Yes, that's a rap! And all that needs to be said to know 'why' S&J used the label 'creationist'. (Behe believes) God is both a creator and a designer.
Because the latter wouldn't be true. The other three, to one degree or another, are all justified true belief on behalf of any observer (read: labeller) of the 'controversy' (mainly in the USA – "Design is an American thing." – A. Peacocke) surrounding evolutionary theory.
Arago
Comment by g arago — July 27, 2005 @ 3:32 am
July 27th, 2005 at 4:05 am
mikegene,
Thanks for reposting my post and replying. I think we have staked out our positions pretty welll, so this will be my last comment.
To summarize: It seems to me that Shanks's use of "creationist" was reasonable, given that 1. the ID Movement (which does not include mikegene, but definitely includes Behe) started with Pandas, a book aimed at the public schools which was well-known to creationism watchers as a creationist work, 2. Behe publicly endorsed Pandas as "top-notch" and has participated in numerous other ways in the ID Movement's political campaign, and 3. As you put it, "Behe's IC argument is essentially an argument for 'sudden discontinuities.'", and Behe thinks that God is the explanation for these sudden discontinuities. Recent developments that Shanks presumably didn't know about seem to strengthen his judgement, namely 4. Behe wrote part of Pandas, 5. Pandas really was a creationist book after all, and 6. Behe is defending said book in court.
Most of this seems to have been new to you, so I think it was worth posting, even though this is all a rather obtuse meta-argument about bias, rather than, say, a discussion of Shank's actual arguments, which still make up most of paper despite the fact that Shanks accused Behe of being a creationist at the beginning. If Shanks had said "Behe is a creationist, therefore his claims are wrong, end of paper", then you would have a more legitimate complaint. But as it is, he spent a lot of ink addressing a Behe argument (see talkorigins.org for endless ink spent addressing all kinds of creationist arguments — certainly "creationist" is not an argument-ender!).
Moving on: It seems to me that you have argued yourself into a corner when you said,
You've just disqualified Michael Behe, William Dembski, and basically everyone else, including yourself to a lesser extent, from making a worthwhile comment.
The whole premise of this thread, and all of the Telic Thoughts blogging about the biases of ID opponents, is weird: by alleging bias in ID critics, you attempt to weaken their credibility and argue that they are not treating the ID arguments objectively. But by obsessively focusing on this meta-issue, you yourself are emphasizing biases over arguments, and thereby not treating the critics' arguments objectively.
All I can tell you is that it all looks like an attempt to come up with a extended psychological explanation for why people reject your ID arguments. Based on me looking at your IDthink website, I speculate that maybe you take this track you also obviously don't have much confidence in the ID arguments of Behe and Dembski — you seem to admit that irreducible complexity can evolve. Therefore you don't really have a coherant empirical case, and focus on psychology instead in order to argue that the evidence for ID is "subtle" and only allegedly "unbiased" people can see it. You are welcome to this strategy, but I think it is a complete waste of time in advancing the case for ID.
You would be better off taking Shanks's route: a brief introduction to your view of the opponent, and a long discussion of primary arguments. Extensive meta-discussion about bias is basically wheel-spinning, and doesn't do anything at all to resolve the science issues.
Sayonara, senor…
Comment by Leon — July 27, 2005 @ 4:05 am
July 27th, 2005 at 9:14 am
G. arago:
I don't think ID is science. But notice how labels define everything. You want me to label my views "˜science,' but an attempt to secure this label will instead get it the label "˜Wedge.' You, G. arago, don't have to consider that DI document as the act of labeling is not dependent on you. There is an army of people with label-makers just itching to label everything.
I never said my views amounted to ground shaking, revolution-making scientific "˜progress'. They amount to a different perspective of an ambiguous reality.
So what's "publishable?" Why is that so important? So we can add the "˜published' label to it? LOL
That's cool. But I have no idea what a neo-evolutionist, neo-IDist is.
Hey, I'm just following the lead of you and Leon. But instead of selectively watering down the term creationism for the purpose of attaching a label, I'll spread it out and play fair, watering down "˜evolution' as part of the game. Evolution = change over time.
It's about as ridiculous as Behe being a creationist.
Sure. If you are intent on labeling Behe a creationist from the start, you have this option, while ignoring all the points I have raised and the questions I have asked. It's fabrication. Notice how G. arago has things set up. The only ones allowed to propose ID are the atheists. If you are not an atheist, but propose ID, you automatically become a "Creationist." And from there, G. arago washes his hands and walks away.
That depends on how you look at it. After all, it's true for the prestigious Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the way he looks at the world. And as you said, we don't have any responsibility to consider how labels are commonly interpreted. So what's the problem?
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2005 @ 9:14 am
July 27th, 2005 at 9:28 am
"Other channels for publication?" Er, that would be labeled as "The Wedge." LOL. Just look what happened to the first (and last) editor who allowed an explicit ID paper to be published. What was that? We're supposed to ignore this, but not ignore Pandas???"
Or should we ignore the fact what happened to the authors of Pandas and People. They were treated as badly as Sternberg:
1. Perceval Davis was a respected author of college biology textbooks. After the publication of Pandas, his career as biology textbook author was destroyed.
2. Dean Kenyon, prior to that publication, after rejecting the theory of Chemical Evolution in favor of II was barred from teaching intro biology. The Wall Street Journal, called Kenyon's case, "Scopes in Reverse".
So not only are those who accept ID papers for publication punished, so are those who publish or speak their dissent in popular books. Behe was thankfully tenured.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 27, 2005 @ 9:28 am
July 27th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Leon:
We can now see that I was right when I kicked off my replies to Leon by noting: "You are fabricating. You've begun with the need to attach the label "˜creationist' to Behe and then cherry-picked from the world the things that support your preconceptions." We can see that Leon has ignored the points I have raised and the questions I have asked. Instead, he had relied on a stubborn tunnel-vision that paints a one-dimensional world in accord with his political needs.
Indeed. But I just factored it into my thinking and explained its trivial nature. The only thing of relevance is that I now understand how a certain blog got its name.
Since Leon cannot answer the questions I asked or the points I raised, he resorts to a new label "“ "obtuse meta-argument." LOL
As I noted, in time, we'll get to Shanks actual arguments against supernatural design.
I'm trying to help people think about the reasons why Shanks chose sentence A instead of sentence B. Why did they use the label in the 2001 article, but not the 1999 article?
In this case, I would argue that Shanks does think along these lines: "Behe is a creationist, therefore his claims are wrong, now let me turn to them to find where they are wrong." Furthermore, we know Shanks is not going to acknowledge that Behe makes a good point anywhere, as that would help the Wedge.
Creationists have spent of lot of ink "addressing" the arguments of evolutionary scientists. Ink means very little.
Shanks already disqualified Behe by insisting we view his arguments in the light of the political prism. What's "news" is that he doesn't realize he has disqualified himself as a consequence of this action.
But it's not weird for Shanks to publish about the biases of Behe (which is exactly what labeling him is all about)? Sorry, but why did you think you could play with a stacked deck?
LOL. This is even better. Leon doesn't seem to appreciate just how much the issue of bias factors into the ID critic arguments. The whole "ID=Creationism=Wedge" is one BIG argument about bias. Actually, it's worse "“ it is an appeal to a sinister, threatening bias. So let's change a couple of words to help us understand Leon:
by alleging bias in ID proponents, you attempt to weaken their credibility and argue that they are not treating the ID arguments objectively. But by obsessively focusing on this meta-issue, you yourself are emphasizing biases over arguments, and thereby not treating the proponent's arguments objectively.
Of course, Leon would probably not see things like this.
Leon finally lets the cat out of the bag. While complaining about psychological explanations, he launches a psychological attack.
Keep your eye on the game ball. In Leon's mind, I don't have a "coherent, empirical case" because IC can evolve. Thus, to have a "coherent, empirical case" I must show that IC cannot possibly evolve. But if I try to show this, I become a "Creationist." Heads Leon wins, Tails Mike Gene loses. Nice game.
No, I "focus on psychology" in order to provide balance to the critics who have always "focused on psychology." That is, some us are intrigued by the way so many critics focus on psychology and give it some thought. For example, when Leon wants to label ID proponents as "˜creationists,' he is doing more than labeling them as "˜biased'; he is trying to label them as "˜stupid' or "˜dishonest' (remember the importance of common perceptions, people). It's also so important to him that he must rely on stubborn tunnel-vision to make it stick (as documented above). So why is only Leon allowed to "focus on psychology?" If people like Leon would cease focusing on psychology, there would be no need for such balance.
As for the evidence for ID, it may indeed be subtle. This is a realization that came from seriously thinking about the notion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Can only "unbiased people" see the evidence? It's hard to say. But if the evidence is subtle, then people who are deeply invested in a political and/or metaphysical sense are unlikely to appreciate any data as subtle evidence for ID. Those on the ID side may see things that don't exist, while those on the anti-ID side may not see things that exist.
I know "“ you want me to come up with something that evolution cannot explain so that you can label me a "˜creationist.' I understand how the game is played.
That's not Shanks route. Shanks route is the route you have been complaining about "“ he sets it up so that we are supposed to consider Behe's arguments in light of his biases (or worse).
Which explains why so many critics have made such a huge fuss out of biases and motivations. Such hypocrisy.
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2005 @ 10:45 am
July 27th, 2005 at 10:55 am
Sal:
Good catch! Yes, we're supposed to ignore this also. It comes with the politically-motivated tunnel vision.
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2005 @ 10:55 am
July 27th, 2005 at 11:39 am
Yet more evidence that Leon is fabricating. Here's what Leon wrote:
Leon is quote-mining. Let's also include the following material that he cut out:
A decade has passed since Of Pandas and People's second edition appeared in print. Written by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, this book was the first intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use. Since the second edition of Pandas, intelligent design (or ID as it is now
abbreviated) has gone from a small and marginalized protest against Darwinian evolution to a comprehensive intellectual program for reconceptualizing biology. Ten years ago intelligent design consisted mainly of sporadic criticisms of Darwinism and offered only vague glimmers of what a positive science of intelligent design might entail. Since then, intelligent design has laid the foundations for a general biology whose fundamental organizing principle is intelligent agency and not blind natural forces.
ID thus originally appeared as "sporadic criticisms of Darwinism." This all makes sense in light of my unchallenged explanations offered above. As one example, I have just shown many scientists would consider evidence against Darwinism as evidence for ID. Thus, even if we accept the premise that creationists spawned the term "˜intelligent design,' they were simply beginning to think like many scientists. From there, Behe looks to Darwin, who tells us how we should challenge/falsify his theory. Like a scientist, Behe accepts the challenge. Dembski then steps in and significantly alters the focus in way that ID can no longer be viewed as creationism by any fair-minded thinker.
I think I'm going to start labeling ID critics as Embryos, as they are in fact connected to their embryonic existence.
There is no need to view everything in terms of sinister conspiracy theories. Unless of course, if you are a conspiracy theorist hip-deep in a political battle.
Comment by MikeGene — July 27, 2005 @ 11:39 am
July 27th, 2005 at 4:58 pm
But Mike Gene, you don't really believe this promotional schtick, do you?
Laid the foundations!? Intelligent agency and biology? Uh, well, most biologists haven't bought in. And it sounds here like you're saying the reasons for this are 90% (or more) political. Can't natural scientists/biologists judge this topic for themselves?
Touche. But so what? You've said ID isn't science. You've said ID shouldn't be taught in schools. You've said you're not towing Dembski's line. Then why not promote your actual Telic Thoughts (about ID) here rather than merely railing against critics of ID theories? Especially since most ID theories are not even your own and with which you don't agree.
You've heard of the book, right: THE DESIGN REVOLUTION?
Is this yet another revolutionary?! This is not putting words into anyone's mouth, and no, it is not 'politicking,' as Mike Gene likes to label it. It is simply repeating what came from the typer's fingers, in this thread even! Is it not ironic that Mike Gene attempts to present ID theory and the IDists who promote it as so innocent. 'Objectivity' and 'let the facts speak' are the claim to fame in his scientific imagination.
LOL!! And people should reach out for Salvador's support, when there is no possible way to defend some things Behe says? Salvador is a nice guy, it appears, likewise drawn in to ID evangelism, as is Behe.
But M. Behe believing in 'creation' at least gives us a clue. In this sense he is a creationist, if not in other senses. You've even admitted this! Saying evolution is applicable to everything, however, is vastly different. Please say that you see this. Behe, for example, isn't quoted as saying 'everything creates or is created.' (Aside: btw, I really recommend the short story by F.M. Dostoevsky, translated as "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man" – I think you'll deeply appreciate it Mike)
Well then, for the record, I don't think you are a creationist, M. Gene. :-> Does that help? And I gather that you are not an atheist. Call it an immaterial, inward feeling I have about you. Though still I wonder why you didn't answer my simple and sweet question, 'do you believe in creation?'
Then again, I'm sure we'd have great discussions about it over a beer (or tea) someday. It doesn't seem that here is the appropriate place for that. In cyberspace maybe then, or in person? Therefore, I will rest my comments for now.
Lastly, please don't put Leon and I in the same camp. This is perhaps a convenience, no doubt. Still, it is largely innacurate from what little I've read by Leon. I don't have any hesitation to be labelled a 'creationist' in a certain limited sense. I believe in the verb 'to create' and in 'creativity' and in 'creative-ness,' and I'm not American. Likely Leon wouldn't want to be called a 'creationist' at all. Please note the difference.
Don't feed into it! (Notorious Big)
With respect,
G. Arago
Comment by g arago — July 27, 2005 @ 4:58 pm
July 28th, 2005 at 8:01 am
No. My thoughts are spelled out here. To this, you can add the warning sticker on my web page.
No, what I am pointing out is that once you insist that everyone views an ID argument through a political prism, you become a political animal. And yes, natural scientist can judge this topic for themselves.
You think any of that matters? You don't seem to know where the lines are drawn. I'm the Enemy of Science unless I proclaim, from the top of the mountains, that ID is Dangerous, Dishonest Nonsense. I can ignore this part of reality or draw people's attention to it.
I'm not promoting innocence. I'm challenging simple-mindedness rooted in conspiracy theories and stereotypes (although, I don't think this is true in your case). "Sinister vs. Innocent" is just black and white thinking imposed on a very complex human reality.
You water down a definition and get a reality; I water down a definition and get a reality.
Because, as I said, I'm not the topic in this thread.
Yes, I would be great to discuss such things in person.
You are probably right. You are not a dime-a-dozen critic. I like you because you seem to have a unique perspective, and most importantly, I have seen you make several critics on ARN very uncomfortable. This tells me you are far more objective than most critics, which causes me to value your criticism of my views. In your case, I would say you are sincere in labeling Behe a creationist simply because he believes in Creation. But that's not the harmless reason many critics in America have chosen the label. In America, the term is chosen because it communicates unmentioned concepts like "Fundamentalist," "Religious Right," "Stupid," and "Dishonest," especially among the audience Shanks and Joplin are writing for. If you want to put a public label on someone, I maintain you can't just use philosophy. You have to consider what the label will communicate to the larger audience.
Comment by MikeGene — July 28, 2005 @ 8:01 am
July 29th, 2005 at 10:34 am
In case anyone wonders about the public understanding of the label "creationist", check out this screen shot from Family Guy.
Comment by Krauze — July 29, 2005 @ 10:34 am
July 29th, 2005 at 11:39 am
I've been away for the last month, and am now trying to catch up, reading Leon's post from the 20th:
"Special creation of some biological system = creationist."
A quote and a question for Leon:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one …"
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., p. 429
Is the position expressed in this statement a creationist position?
Comment by Krauze — July 29, 2005 @ 11:39 am
July 29th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Krauze:
Nice find! They often say a picture is worth a thousand words. That picture explains exactly why Aegeri and Leon insisted on clinging to this label.
Comment by MikeGene — July 29, 2005 @ 9:15 pm