The Post-Wedge Tactic Tally
by MikeGeneLet's provide the Post-Wedge Tactic Tally (PWTT), all gathered from recent events.
We've had one professor accuse a mainstream biology textbook of having a creationist bias, and in doing so, imply that other faculty members chose this book for this reason.
We've seen the Chief of Bioethics and Human Subject Protection for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration being accused of being a creationist.
We've seen a scholar publish an article in the widely read Guardian that lifts embarrassing words out of some obscure web site and falsely put them in Paul Nelson's mouth.
And now, we've just seen a troll engage in jaw-dropping deception in order to deliberately trick William Dembski into getting into some serious real-world trouble.
Next?
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
There's always PZ (when is there NOT PZ?). Here's a deceptively-titled In which I (partially) agree with Paul Nelson for your amusement, in which he opines with such classics as…
and…
Oooooohhhhh… scary! However, PZ's fan club, not to be outdone by their fearless leader, can come up with even better tactics for the tally!
There's just no accounting for some authoritarian wannabe type folks, and if I had a striped shirt I'd blow the whistle and send 'em back ten yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. Of course, PZ's a brawler, not a sportsman. Sometimes a hockey game breaks out in the midst of it, that's all.
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Is any of this a consequence of many Americans buying into a 'clash of civilizations' approach?
Doesn't 'Post-Wedge' equate somehow with Post-Phillip Johnson? Is it possible to take 'intelligent design' post-Johnson? Mike Gene himself isn't likely to do it…and he seems to be defending creationists quite regularly lately, even if he isn't one himself and apparently doesn't believe in creation.
Do you realize, Mike Gene and conspiratorial partners, that Karen Armstrong, like most Christians, believes in/accepts/acknowledges 'intelligent design' in one sense, if not in the sense of big ID that is being pushed by Wedgies and IDMers?
A post-wedge world, suggested by those not behind the wedges in the first place, is rather dream-like and idealistic! At least TT's can try…
Arago
http://www.firstthings.com/fti...
Comment by g arago — August 3, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:10 pm
G arago:
Did you just make this up or do you have specific examples in mind?
Who cares? Why did Karen Armstrong take words off one web page and put them into the mouth of Paul Nelson? Do you have an explanation to offer?
Comment by MikeGene — August 3, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Slightly relevant (I think).
Alexander the Great burst into tears one day upon realizing there were no more worlds left to conquer.
The analogy with public eduction doesn't exactly fit, but as far as policy, the other side has all it can conquer. What more can they do than have something like Ken Millers biology book (2 of 49 chapters on evolution) taught?
What they haven't conquered is the interest in ID. But what else can they do, politically, legally, and ethically speaking?
Post-Wedge "tactics" are starting to look more like Post-Wedge "antics".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 3, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
g arago:
Hi, Greg. I think it's possible to take ID past Johnson, because Johnson isn't ID - he's the Wedge. Which, as I seem to recall, was about forcing the introduction of ID in public school classrooms to accomplish 2 things: 1. Diminish the impact of Neodarwinism and its associations with materialism/atheism, and 2. Open the door for Creationism that was previously ruled unconstitutional to teach in public schools.
The fact that many Creationists don't like ID but did support the Wedge indicates this strategy was an end-run around constitutional rulings from the beginning. Now that ID has also been ruled unconstitutional to teach in public schools, the end-run has nowhere to go. Gig's up, they can all go back to being blueblood Creationists again.
Meanwhile, if there is evidence of teleology in biology, and evidence that adaptive variation is non-random, and evidence that selection is incapable of designing functional complex systems in life forms, biological science will put Neodarwinism in the history closet where it belongs and come up with an evolutionary theoretic that reflects and explains the evidence. They won't call it ID, but what's in a name?
Why in the world would you think Phil Johnson or any other 'Wedgie' or religious-ID supporter or Creationist should care what Karen Armstrong believes? Did she recently get herself dubbed 'uber-pope'?
I can't speak for Mike and the rest of the "conspirators," but I know I sure as heck don't care what Karen Armstrong and/or "most Christians" believe about how God created life. Teleology/design in life is an empirical, objective observation I do not assume to be an illusion just because Neodarwinists tell me I must. See, I don't care what they believe either.
There is no try… [Yoda] We don't have to 'do' anything at all. We've an entire Constitution and attendant judicial system to deal with attempts to teach religion as science in public schools. That system has spoken on the matter.
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2006 @ 2:36 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
But many choose not to. Many creationists like myself and johnnyb find the mode of scientific argument compelling in and of itself (as opposed to theological argument).
So much for the saying that creationist interest in ID was purely political. It's charming to see creationists read pro-ID books with hardly any theological modes of argumentation such as, "the word of God says…therefore….".
Rather we have arguments, "based on first principles of population genetics…."
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 3, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Salvador:
There is nothing left to do except write books against ID, articles against ID, and blogs against ID. In other words, help keep the interest in ID alive.
After all, when is the last time you heard of sixteen of the world's leading scientists drop what they're doing to write a book against astrology or parapsychology?
The University of Kansas is also helping to create a broader interest in ID.
Comment by MikeGene — August 3, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Hear hear!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 3, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Sal:
The Wedge document and the agenda it laid out wasn't science, but ID (or some version of it) can be science. It's great if the concept of intelligent design appeals to the scientific interests of Creationists while it's appealing to the scientific interests of everybody else, and I welcome the continuing hysteria of Neodarwinists in the wake of the Wedge. It can only keep the interest high!
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2006 @ 4:09 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Quite some time ago. ESP busting used to be the rage. Now that it is known for the farce it is few bother about it. But ID is very different from scientology, UFOism, ESP, parapsychology, astrology, conventional creationism and such like. While the latter assorted practices/belief systems etc made concrete claims, demonstrated their art, the neocreos aka ID assertors do no such thing. In the words of the leading lights of ID there is no theory, no publications, and no practitioner of ID. But there are a fair number of self-anointed experts in the field. And so scientists when they write about it are simply discussing the people concerned and the ruckus they are creating. It is a good thing for scientists to take part in the poularisation of science as Mano Singham writes. Now that the first cohort of ID assertors has thrown in the towel (Phil Johnson thinks the fat lady has sung, Behe is busy making rat-traps and befing up his tartan collection, Dembski is running a farce of a blog, and Wells has decided to publish pulp fiction), scientists are getting ready to refute whatever the next cohort has got. However this cohort too like the one before is working with the same toolkit - plausible deniability, pubjacking, and projection. No science of course.l
Comment by agam — August 3, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 pm
agam:
And a goodly portion of the public still believes that all these things exist or "work" or explain phenomena science can't or won't explain. So they buy the books, visit the websites, watch the television shows, buy the trinkets and donate to the self-styled 'experts' just like they always have. Heck, Nancy Reagan ran the White House by astrological chart.
So I'd surmise science lost interest when they figured their own turf (and public funding) was safe. Demonstrating that they didn't really care what the public believes in the first place, so long as their funding didn't get diverted and they didn't have to attend seminars in pseudoscience.
Their issue with ID is the same, or scientists wouldn't be whining so loudly or so publicly. They don't really care what the public believes, they just don't want the public (or the government that serves the public) diverting money. If they ever feel safe and secure against ID - as they already would if ID were less of a threat than UFOs or parapsychology as you claim - they wouldn't bother.
The Post-Wedge World is one in which ID no longer threatens science education or science funding. Since science doesn't whine so loudly or so publicly about UFOs or parapsychology despite the fact that much of the public believes in aliens and ghosts, there's no reason to believe science cares if the public believes in Creationism or ID. Could it be that the insta-pundits and egomaniacs of the anti-ID corner of scientism want to use ID as their own evangelistic Wedge, so are reluctant to give it up?
Comment by Joy — August 3, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Yes, of course you're right, that Johnson isn't ID. He brought together those who are now the main IDists, mentored them, encouraged them, and gave the IDM its legal-rhetorical flavour. You are Joy, however, vastly reducing Johnson's Wedge-perspective and thus misrepresenting it.
What needs to happen is for those IDists who bought into the wedge/anti-naturalism strategy that Johnson pushed forward, to take a public step backward from his strategy to a place that is there own. I highly doubt this will happen anytime soon, if ever. Last year I asked Behe directly by e-mail, and though he replied to other questions, he woudn't do step back from his over-reaching paradigm shift strategy.
I have said for a few years already, that pattern-recognition and specificationalism based on 'information' are worthwhile to develop further. Irreducible complexity is of course cleverly phrased and provocative. But saying that these things have contributed to a new paradigm, grand theory, or evolution-balancing proposition is rather stretching the truth. Don't you think, Joy?
We are on almost the same page here, though I doubt *all* of Darwin's theories will be put in the 'dust bin' of history. Too many other great scientists have accepts aspects, in whole or in part, of what Darwin 'discovered'. Darwin contributed much to natural science. It is only in America, and in small selected pockets elsewhere, that people seem fixated to absolutely erase him from history and to insult him so deeply.
What follows or improves upon neo-Darwinian ideas in biological science won't be called ID - yes Joy, I agree with your speculation (to the chagrin of ST Cordova). And yes, there's a lot in a name, as both 'relativity' and 'uncertainty' are well-known as linguistic constructs, not just to specialized natural scientists. I+D is a tempting (subversive) combination, especially for religiously-minded scientists and scientifically-minded religious persons.
Do you care what YOU believe about how God created/designed/made/inbreathed/intervened in/constructed life? You give the impression sometimes that you just look out for #1 and it doesn't even matter if theological arguments get highjacked by scientists, agnostics or basic atheists whose mission to secularize or de-religionize history and the present is obvious and too simple to miss. It is the epitome of non-conformism by someone who has apparently been damaged by the arrogance of certain Darwinists, if not the vast majority of other evolutionists (persons who accept features of evolutionary theories).
This is one place where I actually applaud Mike Gene; that he doesn't participate in attacking religiously-musical ID believers. Instead, he seems intent rather to 'follow the evidence where it leads,' as Phillip Johnson instructed his ID protoges to do.
It does sometimes seem that you are selectively conspiratorial, Joy, not that that's a crime.
That's enough said in itself. Perhaps *it* can be science, someday, somewhere, according to someone who can leap forward where those who have pushed i+d thus far haven't. It would be silly to deny that possibility. Your argument actually supports the evidential tally, i.e. that getting 'past' the Wedge document, would be fancifully harder than most at TT's wish to consider. Shucks, I was a fan of 'the little train that could' when I was a child too!
If Post-Wedge-World is merely a synonym for 'No ID in schools…constitutionally,' then you folks need to read the leaked Wedge document for its motivations, and Johnson's The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism over again. There's much there that you're simply ignoring in support or your favorite non-Johnsonian arguments.
Maybe a little J.H. Newman wouldn't hurt either!
Good wishes with your Telics,
Gregory
p.s. Salvador's still a self-proclaimed Wedgie, though, isn't he?
Comment by g arago — August 4, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Added, for Joy; another Christian whose views about how God create life she needn't *care* about:
"The theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill." - John Henry Newman (1868)
Comment by g arago — August 4, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
August 4th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
g arago:
Well, I never bought into the wedge/anti-naturalism strategy, and while I think Behe and Dembski both have provided sparks of seminal ideas that may be refined to suggest teleology in further research, I never bought their books or joined any 'movement'. We here at Telic Thoughts say right on the page banner that our blog is "independent," and it most assuredly is or I never would have been invited. §;o)
How much more public would you have us be? What more of a "happy place" would you have us build? Or are you just suggesting that we bar the comments of interested persons who DO support the Wedge or are YECs/religiously Creationist? I'm not clear on what it is you expect of us.
While I'm glad you don't mind if others develop the teleological view further, where have I ever said there's a "new paradigm" or "grand theory" out here? I see Neodarwinism as scientifically and intellectually bankrupt. It's had real problems for quite awhile, and I'm not the only person who knows it. So what I think is that you shouldn't be suggesting dishonesty. That qualifies as ad hominem, which means you've already lost whatever debating points you were hoping to get through the fallacy.
Oh, give us a break, Greg. Human beings have been carefully observing and selectively breeding plants and animals for thousands of years. Darwin was not the first person to notice that there's variation in life forms (even in the same species), or that variants have differential luck at life, health and reproduction. He just turned it into a theoretic and pretended it explained the totality of life on planet earth.
Darwin died a long time ago. He doesn't care about insults and he won't cry if he's put on the history shelf where he belongs. His contributions were significant, but that's no reason for science to ignore its own provisionality and carve his naive theoretic into stone as Absolute Truth for all time! I notice nobody's ever too worried about how Gregor Mendel might feel about insults. Why is that?
Excuse me? What in the world do my metaphysical beliefs have to do with anything? It looks like you're just fishing for some affirmation of faith from me that you can then parse for theological adherence. I'm not playing. I have never confused my metaphysical leanings with science or doing science, though I did STOP doing science when what I was doing violated every moral/ethical tenet of anybody's belief system and nothing was being done about it. MY choice. God didn't make it for me and neither did Science.
I do have a problem with evangelical atheists who corrupt science for their own metaphysical ends. I've spoken out about that at length many times. Did you miss it all? But since we're here in a totally sideways diversion, I haven't been "hurt" by any Darwinist or any other evolutionist. They can't hurt me, Greg. I don't belong to their club.
If Johnson (a lawyer) and other fundamentalist/evangelical Christians want to do battle with materialism in general and materialism as evangelical Atheism in science, then they have the right to use any and all legal means at their disposal to do so. The main problem evangelical Atheists using a corrupted science to promote their faith in society have is that they're not very legally or politically savvy. Biologists are less than 1/2 of 1% of the US population. All scientists and engineers and technicians account for a grand total of 2.5% of the population (2000 census data). Professing atheists (all professions) amount to about 10%. Out in the wider world, scientists are a serious minority, and they ignore the implications of that on the sociopolitical battlefield at their agenda's peril.
But they've the same rights Johnson, et. al. have to play on that field. The rules are quite different, and they haven't a prayer unless they get their act together (even then their chances are basically nil). I think they should go for it - all this sneaky stuff and hidden agenda crap is unproductive. I'd like to see the battle taken completely public so it can be settled, at least for a generation or so.
Comment by Joy — August 4, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
August 5th, 2006 at 10:28 am
O.k. then. That's enough for me. Perhaps it is just those who use his ideas that you're angry withö not Darwin himself.
Well, but then why the need to follow that up with sniveling:
Such a ridiculous double standard is rather unattractive. Yes, of course Darwin's contribution to science is historical, as is everyone else's. Und so??
Are you serious? What, are you becoming an ID-agnostic now? Your metaphysical beliefs are entirely disconnected from your views of Science?
True. Can't think of one place, and I've read many pages worth of ink (on my screen) from your fingers. But then again, you don't represent ID in any way, shape or form either. You apparently now just want to encourage suggesting teleology in research. And there's nothing clearly significant about that, is there?
Funny to note that over four years ago, in Joy's first post to me, she cautioned against using the metaphor 'battle'. I was impressed by that. She was also at that time, imo, more generally inquisitive, and her views seemed open to hearing both sides of the i+d theretic, both strengths and weaknesses, from theists and non-theists respectively. Instead, now she appears to be a die-hard anti-anti-Darwin, inflexibly supportive of something still undefined, that is the theory/hypothesis/field of i+D.
To reject or dismiss all of the Christians in your country, and the larger majority of those abroad who accept features of evolutionary theories, even those who acknowlege some legitimate aspects of Darwin's views, for the sake of joining a rabble of agnostic ID-evolutionists, seems rather beyond reckoning to me.
At peace,
Gregory
Comment by g arago — August 5, 2006 @ 10:28 am