The MikeGene Story
by MikeGeneSecularists vs. religionists, school boards monkeying with science standards, court rooms, presidential commentary, thunderous editorials, OSC complaints, allegations of assault and resignations. Why in the world do I even bother with this topic of intelligent design? All of the above can be just plain depressing, and given that I approach ID as a hobbyist working on his craft during the late hours of the night, why in the world would I choose a hobby that puts me in the crossfire of a socio-political battle?
Over the years, several people have asked about my background. I've put off talking about it because I don't feel like handing out a complex story that will then get twisted and distorted in some cellophane wrapped little package that gets tossed about in the world of memes. However, at some point, the reluctance to address the questions becomes entrenched suspicion and fear. So I've decided to talk about myself for those who have been interested.
Let's go back in time and begin with my first semester of my first year at the university. One day, I was in the university library, dazzled by the vast array of books everywhere. As I explored the stacks, I came across a book laying on one of the tables. It had a catchy cover with a cool-looking space theme on it. It's title? Scientific Creationism, by Henry Morris.
Y'see, I was raised in a purely secular environment. My parents were not religious and neither did I have any religious friends. The closest I ever came to hearing the Christian gospel was every year on Charlie Brown's Christmas special (and Linus's little speech always confused me). Needless to say, since I was quite oblivious to Christianity, I was completely in the dark about creationism (you don't learn about it in the schools).
So here was this nifty looking book promising to show the evolution I had been taught was all wrong. It intrigued me and I checked it out. Armed with my 18-year-old brain and high school biology background, I read the book. And I found many of the arguments quite compelling.
Now, if that was all there was, I'm not sure what would have become of it. As an 18-year-old boy with the interests that most 18-year-olds have when they finally get away from home and are presented with all kinds of recreational opportunities on a college campus, pursuing the creationism thing wasn't exactly on the top of the list. However, I made a fateful decision.
I was taking a Philosophy 101 course at the time. This course happened to be taught by someone whose speciality was the philosophy of science, so of course, that was where he laid the emphasis. Okay, so eventually we had a final paper assignment, and we had been learning about the difficulties in defining science and demarcation problems, so you might guess what I did. I used my course textbook, in conjunction with Morris' book, to argue that evolution was not science. I wasn't trying to be clever or provocative. I was being a lazy student who made use of a book he had just read to come up with a topic to write about in a class that was not very interesting.
The professor must have experienced some cognitive dissonance, as I surely didn't look like any creationist. Maybe that's why he went easy on me, as I got an A- on the paper. But what was most intruguing for me was the angry comments penned in red throughout the margins. Mind you, he wasn't angry with me, but it was like he was clearly having an argument with the creationists in those margins, where some of the more intemperate remarks were sratched out (but still readable). Anyway, we never talked about my paper. But it gets better.
I didn't think too much of my paper and the professor's reaction. I was just happy to get the A- and get on with my campus life. But then we had another paper due in my freshman composition class. This was supposed to be our "˜persuasion' paper and I did as as many students do "“ I made some minor changes and handed in my philosophy paper. Now, this must have messed with my English prof's mind, as prior to the "˜persuasion' paper, we had a "˜description' paper. For my description, I drew from a book I had obtained from one of those old "˜head shops' (do they still exist?) that told you how to make an illegal substance. So the next paper she gets is some argument about how evolution is not science. Picture that! LOL
A few days after I turned in my persuasion paper, the English professor wanted to have a meeting with me about it. I was nervous, as I thought she somehow found out that I handed in my philosophy paper and I was going to get in trouble. When I showed up in her office, she gave me the paper and I got a B+. And it turned out that she was concerned about me because I was arguing that evolution was not science. As she was gently lecturing me about evolution and creationism, I was first relieved to find I was not really in trouble. But as I continued to half-listen to her, I started to get the impression that she was telling me this topic was "off-limits." Now, I don't remember if she was indeed saying this, and she was being nice and concerned, but that's the impression that stuck with me. She's trying to help a kid right out of highschool, but the barely-out-of-highschool kid starts seeing her as the high school teachers he left behind, telling you what you can and cannot do. It's an authority issue for me. The bottom line is that while she was just trying to steer me away from taking creationism too seriously, she was just feeding my rebellious nature and turning creationism into some forbidden fruit that had just set off my philosophy prof in red-penned rage.
So I eventually went back to the library, this time to gather more creationist books. To make a long story short, this ultimately led to an interest in Christainity, which led to me responding to a public invitation in the student newspaper, which led to me attending a campus church, which led to a profound religious experience and me becoming a Christian. I became a member of that campus church for about a year. But then I had significant disagreements. It was the first time I was a member of a church and was the last time I was a member of a church.
Over the next few years, two things of significance occurred. First, I found C.S. Lewis. He was the first Christian intellectual I ever came across, as prior to this time, I did not think of Christianity in any intellectual way. Second, I found out how much I truly enjoyed to argue. Each spring, the preachers would preach on the campus, often drawing large crowds. During those days, I would strike up conversations with all the people hanging about and this eventually led to debates and arguments. I would often spend hours arguing with different people about all kinds of subjects, sometimes from noon till dark. There was nothing more exhilararting than face-to-face arguments with people from all kinds of worldviews. Those days in the sun arguing were much more of a learning experience than anything in our controlled classrooms. Anyway, it was during this time that I really became interested in creationism (among many other things), as often times, people would use evolution as an argument against Christianity.
However, over time, and many, many arguments later, I gradually came to abandon creationism. The causes behind this erosion were many. I read some books by theistic evolutionists and was stimulated by their perspective on things. The arsenal of creationist arguments fell apart as I began to better understand evolution. I began to appreciate the radical implications of deep time. And I even had theological problems with creationism. For example, why would God create something like the chimpanzee? Since it seems the world could get by just fine without chimps and gorillas, why create an animal that looks just like a transitional form?
So I eventually transitioned into theistic evolution and became completely content. And it is from this vantage, several years later, that I ran across Intelligent Design.
My relationship with intelligent design has always been a function of the internet. I came upon ID one day while surfing various internet forums out of boredom. This was a little over a year after Michael Behe's book came out and I found people arguing about it most heatedly. The "buzz" caught my attention and I was intrigued because Behe was not someone I knew from the creationist literature, but was instead a reputable biochemist at a mainstream university. Anyway, as I read through the exchanges, and surfed the web, to better familiarize myself with Behe and his new argument, I must admit that I admired Behe for having such temerity.
I have long had an affinity for the underdog given that my history had been that of one person arguing against many, so I decided to join the fray since the maverick's supporters on the forum seemed outgunned and outnumbered. Originally, I intended to play the gadfly and I intended to play for a short time. I had, after all, put the whole origins issue behind me and was no longer all that interested in it. But then three things happened.
First, Behe saw my internet arguments and e-mailed me. After a short exchange, he sent me a signed copy of his book and I finally sat down to read it. Now, it can be a illuminating experience to read someone's argument after reading critics trash the argument, as many of the things people were complaining about were not in the book. But the thing that resonated most for me was where Behe makes it clear that intelligent design has no obligatory relationship with religion. I quickly began to appreciate that one could approach this topic just as any other theistic evolutionist approaches science. My religious views were not needed to think about ID nor dependent on any outcome from considering ID.
Well, since Behe seemed like such a nice guy, and sent me a free book, I felt some kind of obligation to extend the gadfly routine a little longer. But two other dynamics were already beginning to take over. Many of Behe's internet critics were increasing obnxious with me and a sure way to feed my addiction to argument was to attack me personally. Ego helped keep me from walking away. Much more important, however, was the fact that as I argued about intelligent design over time, I began to experience the fact that IC and ID can indeed lead to novel and even frutiful ways of viewing the data. As someone who had once been a creationist, I could feel in my bones that there was something different about this intelligent design thing.
Sometime later, I joined the ARN forum. By this time, I had become seriously interested in ID and was looking for fresh faces to test drive some of my ideas. After a about a year on the ARN forum, several people from both sides of the aisles suggested that I put up a web page to better organize/clarify my positions. Someone I met from the ARN forum helped me in that endeavor. It was also on the ARN forum where the socio-political dimension of the debate really began to sink in. I had long envisioned the internet to be populated by people like me "“ people who just enjoy arguing about this topic. But then I was completely caught off guard when politcally motivated critics actually believed the ARN forum and my web page was all part of the Wedge conspiracy. At that point, I came close to walking away from it all. But I had developed many friends on the ARN forum by then and they encouraged me to keep at it.
Finally, to bring us close to the present, I had been conversing with some other cyber-friends that I met on ARN. When some of the first ID blogs started to come on line, we noticed and decided to add our voice to the mix. Besides, by this time, many of ARN's critics had gone off to the Thumb, I was fairly well tired of the ARN forum after 4000 postings, and it seemed like a good idea to jump on the blogosphere bandwagon .
Two questions probably remain in the minds of some. First, are my ID views religiously motivated? Not at all. Ever since it became clear to me that ID can be cleanly cut away from religious considerations, I have mined this perspective in great depth. Critics who cannot fathom continual consideration of ID without religion becoming involved at some point simply don't have the experience and perspective that I have. Besides, just what would my religious motivation be?
The logic of ID is crystal clear. Say, for example, that someone infers that the bacterial flagellum was designed because it was irreducibly complex and demonstrated complex specified information (the mainstream ID ways of inferring design). Why would belief that the designer was God be necessary for such an inference? Why would someone be forced to conclude the existence of God (of the Bible?) as a consequence of making such a design inference? The logic of ID does not require a religious assumption nor does it mandate a religious conclusion.
Second, what about my contacts with major players in the ID movement? Well, they found me just as you found me "“ from reading something I wrote on the internet and contacting me by e-mail. As a consequence of reading my internet writings, I was once invited to give an ID presentation. As a consequence of giving this presentation (I assume), I was later invited to visit the Polanyi Insitute and consider taking a position. I declined that invitation. Some people think I am some significant player behind closed doors, but that's not true. Because of the obvious similarities in interest, there has been infrequent, sporadic cross-talk over the years, mostly in the form of questions and answers about intelligent design or me personally. But I would think most would be able to figure out by now that I am not a actor in someone else's play.
Okay, so there you have it "“ more than 2000 words about me. It's another example of me walking that extra mile, as I have argued with hundreds of critics over the years and combined, they have not divulged anywhere near the same amount of personal information about themselves. But if a critic or a friend wants more, this is the place and now is the time to ask. If I feel the question is relevant, or doesn't entail information that will help my stalkers 'out' me, I'll try my best to answer it.
March 5th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Hi Mike,
Thanks for sharing that with the rest of us.
Comment by Krauze — March 5, 2006 @ 10:53 am
March 5th, 2006 at 11:56 am
I enjoyed the piece, Mike. Differences of opinion do not bother me. I believe intelligence is a non-supernatural aspect of reality, but I would not be offended that materialists believing some mechanical explanation, devoid of intelligent causation will eventually be found to explain living processes. It is the tactics of the ID critics that attract me to this debate, the insistence than any criticism of "random mutation and natural selection" is religiously motivated. A charge I personally know to be untrue, since I am not a theist;. I do not believe in a personal god. Throughout human history, most people have recognized intuitively that intelligence plays a role in the organization of the universe. If scientifically naïve people have personified that intelligence and called it God, in my opinion they were closer to the truth than the materialists, who insist that volition and intelligence plays no role in the organization of intelligently functioning systems.
Comment by Bert — March 5, 2006 @ 11:56 am
March 5th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mike,
Thanks. That was very enlightening. Although, I am rather disappointed that you didn't mention all the influence I've exerted on you in guiding your ID thinking. But that's okay, I'm big enough not to dwell on the slight.
Comment by Douglas — March 5, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
I know you gave up creationism, but I think that the shape of creationism today is radically different than in the past, in that it focusing more on research and less on rhetoric. Even if you just want to catch up on the current state of creationism, I encourage you to read Understanding the Pattern of Life. I promise you it is different than any previous creationist book you have read.
Also, you might be interested in Kurt Wise's presentation to the Geological Society of America.
Comment by johnnyb — March 5, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Wow, I apologize for saying you were a deist. Great presentation Miguel Gene.
Comment by Arik Soong — March 5, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Lewis? Intellectual Christianity? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Mike, you are really the Jack Bauer of the Darwinian and ID debate. 
I don't know what possessed you to open up to satisfy the curiosity a bunch of internet oddities, but thanks for sharing.
I do have a comment about something that you've said. Putting aside the scientific merit of the chimp as a transitional. I wonder about the philosophical aspect of your question.
Why would the fact that God created primates casts doubt on Biblical account? Isn't this the same as the bad design argument? What if I were to ask why would people invent a centaur? If the ancient Greeks have the ability to create anything they want, would they have bring the centaur to life? Could the world get along fine without it? We have. It just seems to me that this type of question is insufficient to discredit the Creation account. Sorry if this derails from your unprecedented testimony. Consider it a rhetorical question.
Comment by teleologist — March 5, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
March 5th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Thanks, Mike! That was inspirational.
Comment by lilias — March 5, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 12:17 am
I wonder if the academic sin of using the same paper twice, without disclosure, was a vision of things to come.
It's fun to irritate professors, of course. But at some point one should seek real understanding, too.
And that's where ID breaks down. Behe musters some good arguments, and his recasting of Darwin's falsification test as irreducible complexity was interesting. But there is no science to support the initial conjectures, and in fact much of the conjecture had been refuted already (it's interesting that he claims his already-refuted in 1996 arguments haven't been refuted yet, in the new edition).
It's fun to argue — it gets the blood flowing, can sharpen one's appreciation for the nuances of an argument. If one gets deeply into an argument and the philosophy of argument or argumentation in general, one should develop a keen appreciation for evidence, how it is used, and how it should be granted credence. In particular, one should learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and experimental evidence; the difference between arguments that sound good and make reference to evidence, and good arguments based on what the evidence actually establishes; the difference between what one hopes to be, and what is. One should learn the difference between celebrity, even minor celebrity, and integrity in presentation — sometimes our idols are wrong.
It's a good story, MG. There's no support for ID in it.
Comment by edarrell — March 6, 2006 @ 12:17 am
March 6th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Bert,
You are one of my earlier fellow travelers and I have always appreciated your input. For years, you have offered a calm and steady case that has not gone unnoticed. Where the critics hurt themselves is in their personal attacks on other people. While they must rely on guess work, as you say, "A charge I personally know to be untrue." And once they so arrogantly misread our motivations, they end up flushing away their credulity, causing the Dilbert Principle to erase whatever point they might have had.
Douglas,
I have always been a fan of your stealth humor and have been greatly appreciative of the ways you have "watched my back" on the ARN forum. I couldn't be more pleased that you have joined us on our little blog- you just need to work on Nobe and Leonard to get them to over here.
Johnnyb,
Thanks for the link to "Understanding the Pattern of Life." At some point in the future, maybe I will check it out.
Arik,
Well, your "deist" characterization may not be too far off, as my conceptions of ID have little to do with any well-developed theism/theology. If anything, theological considerations cause me to be very sympathetic to the theistic evolution perspective - no surprise given that I am a theistic evolutionist.
Teleologist,
I satisfy the curiosity a bunch of internet oddities because I have long been willing to walk that extra mile. On ARN, I would frequently address "hard" questions and expose myself to "cross-examination." If the critics would now like to make a "motivation" argument about me, let them do so. Let them take the information above and show how it discredits any of the arguments I have put on the table. As for the creationism angle, I am not interested in hashing that out in this thread. I can just mention that I am quite sympathetic to the "bad design" arguments.
Ed,
You misread me. I wasn't trying to irritate any professors. I was like a lot of 18-year-old college students "“ balancing the desire for good grades against the desire for campus partying. And yes, it is fun to argue. I've learned all the lessons you mentioned. In fact, most of that learning did not come from the artificial classroom setting, but from the "streets."
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 2:27 am
March 6th, 2006 at 5:51 am
edarrell,
"It's a good story, MG."
So now Mike Gene is the "Michael Jordan" of the ID movement? With fluid, athletic moves, and tongue hanging out, delivering devastating Internet critiques of Darwinian theory?
Comment by Douglas — March 6, 2006 @ 5:51 am
March 6th, 2006 at 7:12 am
Interesting I went from atheist, to theistic evolutionist to creationist. The reason was not science but a commitment to the scriptures, I could not marry original sin and the consequent total depravity of man with evolution.
My guess is due to your belief in theistic evolution you don't believe in total depravity or have a very interesting theory on how guilt and corruption for rebelling against God entered the human/hominoid race. And further how this guilt and corruption is imputed to every human being since its entry point. I would love to hear your view on this if you have the time. But as this qn isn't directly realeted to ID I can appreciate it if you decline.
Comment by willo — March 6, 2006 @ 7:12 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Willo,
Have you ever read the Silmarillion?
Comment by thegiffman — March 6, 2006 @ 9:38 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Still, I don't think we should underestimate the threatiness of what you did.
Comment by macht — March 6, 2006 @ 9:41 am
March 6th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Unlike you Mike Gene, I do not follow Christ, but a person named Julie Thomas. I do hope her prophecies will become fulfilled. I am with Krauze, Nelson Alonso, Peter Nyikos, and Jack of ARN about this. BTW, why did DNAunion become an apostate in our following.
Comment by Arik Soong — March 6, 2006 @ 9:45 am
March 6th, 2006 at 11:49 am
Willo,
Yes, the truly serious tension between Christianity and evolution centers around evil. I will share my views on this - but it won't be for some time.
Macht,
LOL!
Arik,
I think DNAUnion was looking for some type of scientific justification for his faith. In other words, he put his money on an ID-type proof and became discouraged when it didn't hold up. But I will never say anything bad about DNAUnion. He "watched my back" at ARN among the most mean-spirited of critics.
Comment by MikeGene — March 6, 2006 @ 11:49 am
March 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Ah I enjoyed that read Mike! Did Benjii get to you?
j/k
Comment by Dane Parker — March 6, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Mike,
Thank you for telling us your story. Hardly a weekday goes by on the net when I don't look for your postings!
There have been other things demanding my time of late, especially on the weekends, and I will very much miss having a chance to frequently participate on the net with you as I once did.
It really was a lot of fun when ARN was swarming with critics. I like target rich environments, but well, I have to move on to more practical thing in life rather than partaking in the joy of internet combat.
Anyway, the critics mostly retreated to PT and I'm ready to move on to more fun things than beating up ARN sock puppets. I will say, it's nice to see our old foe PvM find a home for himself at PT.
He was the most talented internet warrior I ever saw, a real army of one.
As far as my most memorable moment in the Mike Gene story? I will forever remember your exchange with RgD and Alix Neuphar. Something about Futayama and carpaces. I still break out a chuckle when I think of that.
Hey, best wishes to you, Mike. I hope to hear from you from time to time. Take care,
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — March 6, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Cheers Mike look forward to it.
thegiffman:
'have you ever read Silmarillion?'
No thegiffman can't say I have.
Comment by willo — March 6, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
March 6th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Hi Mike,
Well, here we are a long long way from ARN. I hope you remember me. I stopped posting after it became too much heat and not enough light. I was Duane Salmon's friend. He brought me to ARN.
I am glad you finally got around to telling your story. Truthfully, I suspected you were Mike Behe. lol Glad to know you're not.
So, here are my questions:
Do you remember me? I helped you with IDTHINK in the beginning.
What would be a short list of books or articles to help a beginner in ID?
What materials should an intermediate look at?
Where are the advanced materials on ID and what are they?
Most importantly for me, in what ways can a student of ID help in the movement?
I was very pleased you were mentioned by Dembski in his Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses.
Great to know you are still around!
Yours,
Ken
Comment by Ken Beacon — March 6, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
March 7th, 2006 at 12:13 am
Hi Salvador,
We share the same most memorable moment. After all, it inspired the ARN Show. Unfortunately, with ARN's "upgrade," the show has been gutted.
I hope you check in on us on a semi-regular basis. If not, you should e-mail me so I can get your e-mail address.
Hi Ken,
Yes, I remember you! It's great to hear from you. Those were the really early ARN days "“ you, Duane, DNAUnion, and Bertvan. I've sometimes wondered whatever happened to you.
As for book suggestions, my story pretty much captures my exposure to the ID literature. It really pretty much is a "Behe's book, followed by internet arguments" thing. So I would definitely suggest Behe's book and then shamelessly plug my web page (check out ID101) and our blog. Dembski's page also has plenty of material to read through. Maybe someone else here can weigh in and offer suggestions.
As for suggestions about involving yourself in the movement, I'm not really part of any movement, so, sorry, I can't help you there.
Thanks for getting in contact again. And hang around.
Comment by MikeGene — March 7, 2006 @ 12:13 am
March 7th, 2006 at 5:18 am
Hi Ken,
On the right side of this page, we feature a number of books. For a beginner, I suggest Paul Davies' The Fifth Miracle and Simon Conway Morris' Life's Solution. They don't advocate intelligent design, but they deal with some of the same issues that Mike and the rest of us here at TT write about.
Comment by Krauze — March 7, 2006 @ 5:18 am
March 7th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Thanks Mike. I am pleased you remembered me. I wasn't at ARN very long. lol Yes, that's a shameless plug! I wondered if you were going to mention your website.
After I posted here I went over to the ol' idthink and read most of it. Good stuff! I had already been to designinference.com. Great stuff over there.
I am here because one of Eugenie's crew (member of NCSE) started writing letters to the editor and eventually I had to speak up. A editorial battle ensued. Since I am inactive politically right now I wanted to find a way to contribute to the theory of ID in whatever way I can.
Krauze: Thank you too for those suggestions. I'll be sure to put them on my list.
Thanks to both of you for your thoughtful suggestions!
I'll be sure to stick around and read up on all I've missed.
Thanks again Mike for your thoughtful contributions to ID theory!
All the best,
Ken
Comment by Ken Beacon — March 7, 2006 @ 10:55 pm
March 8th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Dear Mike,
Interesting to learn your story. Not so long ago I received the next message:
"Hey Fernando,
I really enjoy the research you do and have found it quite informative. Have you considered documenting your findings in a book? (Perhaps collaborating with Mike Gene on "ID Theory in Practice", combining work on ID-based prediction and use of the metatheory.) Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work!
Atom"
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ub...
So, I just wanted to ask you if in private can you tell me what kind of research are you currently doing (I guess that it is in the Molecular Realm). My email is in the PDF at the beginning of the same thread.
Fer.
Comment by Fer — March 8, 2006 @ 12:28 am
March 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Nice story, Mike. Too bad it's all made up. When will you admit that you are either a Rostafarian (as Matty suspected) or a Druid (as I suspect)?
It's good to see Ken Beacon is still alive.
I don't know the whole DNAunion story. Has he changed his mind about ID or about his religious beliefs, or both?
I have a thread at ISCID on the arbitrariness of the genetic code, just in case you want to throw in your 2 cents worth.
Comment by Bilbo — March 9, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
March 26th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Isn't it amazing how far someone with hillbilly roots, and a domineering grandmother, can come in a few years, with only a graduate degree, and a flair for Internet debate?
Comment by Douglas — March 26, 2006 @ 10:21 am