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....
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