The Real Movement
by BradfordFor years critics have fulminated about the "ID movement" while engaging in their own much more effective socio-political crusades. The science blogs are loaded with socio-political invective. The top ranked blog in this group carries a descriptive tag Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal. It is the godless liberal aphorism, not science, which best depicts the themes of most of the blog entries.
Help "Fight the Good Fight!" Hand Out Flyers! summarizes the preoccupation of one who should be advancing the public understanding of science instead of indulging his own hostilities toward religion.
Mad rantings about politics, evolution, and microbiology is another location where one can be treated to a generous dose of socio-political expositions. The real movement is alive and well.
Are You a Scientist Interested in Getting More Involved in the Political Process? Hey why not, particularly if the cause lies in the desired part of the political spectrum.
Billy Joel described the types who gravitate to the real movement:
There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
So he can't understand why his heart always breaks.
But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
And he's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell-
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.
Only they tend to be the privaleged, not those with working class ties. Otherwise the lyrics accurately describe too many ID critics who hypocritically rail against socio-political movements while promoting their own.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Haha! Good choice. I've always found that song descriptive for so much when it comes to controversial topics.
Comment by nullasalus — April 17, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I was sort of hoping those last two threads had done a good enough job of showing that both sides share equal metaphysical footing. There are fanatics and crazy people on both sides. ID supporters in the middle passively support their crazies by refusing to call them crazy, and people on the other side do the same thing. Haven't we already agreed about all this? Yet despite your grumbles now you post another socio-political opinion piece. Will you grumble more when once again we point out that we have different opinions? Will you once again accuse us of pointless socio-political chatter whenever you post pointless socio-political chatter and we point it out? All I've said from the start is that you have no high ground to stand on here. Perhaps if I instead took your apparent path of implicitly claiming a high ground instead of admitting there is no high ground then it would be more obvious that there is no high ground.
As for our crusade being "much more effective" I like to think that's because reality is on our side.
We certainly started as the underdogs but I like to think we're winning too.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
How can you take the high ground back when you lost it in a sea of hypocrisy? For years your side has bemoaned the DI having a political agenda while all along you had one too.
Comment by Bradford — April 17, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The problem is, if there's a fight to win, or even a side to fight on, you've already lost - it simply demonstrates that it was never about 'science', or even truth or reality. It's about politics and (even worse) philosophy, despite all claims to the contrary. And if there's one place reality typically means nothing, it's in those spheres.
Which is why, in a way, I love all the fighting. The more aggressive it gets, the more it demonstrates what the fight is really about - and the public gets skeptical of all sides. As well they should be.
Comment by nullasalus — April 17, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
April 17th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Did you not read a thing I said? There IS no high ground! Argh, how can you claim I am trying to take what I am claiming doesn't exist? Do you claim god is on my side too? I give up.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 17, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Todd's just arguing that the topic of science is filled with people who have secondary philosophical agendas, and try to pass off metaphysical views as 'scientific truth' when in reality it's just an abuse of both science and reason.
You know - stuff ID proponents and others have been saying for years. But he's chipper because he thinks the lies 'his side' tells are effective. Behold, the values of the secular world, the advances of The Enlightenment.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 12:19 am
April 18th, 2008 at 3:41 am
So we have "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal." which makes it very clear it is the writings of an atheist and a liberal right there in the title, and then we have "Evolution News and Views" which to the unknowing eye purports to give an unbiased vuew of the debate. Which is the moral one?
There are millions of scientists out there, and a large number of them blog. Some of those scientists hold political views - just like non-scientists. So they blog about science and politics. So what? Does that mean all scientists or all evolutionists/Darwinist are political? Does it mean the entire evolutionist "movement" must have a political agenda?
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 3:41 am
April 18th, 2008 at 5:04 am
This is a delightful irony - I hope it was intentional. To accuse the critics of being on a "crusade" in one sentence, then whine about "socio-political invective" is wonderful.
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 5:04 am
April 18th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Evolution News and Views is a blog Pixie. Blogs mix opinions and news stories. That's a major part of what makes them blogs. The DI also has a blog devoted to socio-political matters:
http://www.discovery.org/blogs...
Not very mainstream of them to separate politics from natural history issues right Pixie?
Why haven't critics like you been asking these questions with reference to ID? You could have just as easily written:
Does that mean all scientists or all IDists are political? Does it mean the entire ID "movement" must have a political agenda?
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 7:02 am
April 18th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Wonderful as in reinforcing this final point:
Otherwise the lyrics accurately describe too many ID critics who hypocritically rail against socio-political movements while promoting their own.
Why rail against the DI when you are an active culture warrior?
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 7:05 am
April 18th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Bradford, Evolutionnews.org isn't a blog. It's simply a posting-only site with commenting and trackbacks disabled. Even afarce like UD can be called a blog with all the comment tamparing and paring that goes on there, but Evolutionnews or ID the Future. They are both meant to be 1-way megaphones, and are run by cowardly hacks with no intention of facing criticism. Old Creationism and ID the new creationism are both politico-social movements. A few scientists have realised that this debate has never been over the science, only politics. So they are being pretty vocal about it. Barely 10 years ago a debate regarding evolution meant that a stodgy (old usually) scietist in tweeds, would bring a suitcase full of papers to the meeting and drone on evidence explaining everything patiently, while the creationist would slip out this raft of nicely done up slides, parroting usual talking points. Quite a few scientists realisng the farce this debate had become quietly kept away. But a few of them decided to take the hacks at their own game. So when the 2nd round of "debates began around 2000 we had smart, trendy, scientists-cum-popularisers like Lawrence Krauss, Ken Miller, and a few others taking on the hacks. It was a no contest and by about 2003 the debate game was up. Behe, Wells, Dembski, Meyer, Nelson, etc., learned the hard way that taking on a hard boiled scientist at their own game, is a futile endeavour. These scientists came prepared to the nines, armed with the creos' own raft of past oresentations. In one particularly memorable "debate" Miller came armed with three old presentations of both Behe and Wells and clinically took both the guys apart. When you are a hack working for an ersatz "research institution" chrning out copy for Townhall or First Things, and have forgotten what it is like to be questioned, going up against a scientist who is supervising half-a-down grad students, writing NSF/NIH proposals, running a lab, and managing a program, all at the same time, requires extraordinary courage or foolishness. I remember one slide from Miller's presentation that never fails to elicit guffaws. There's this slide showing Miller at work in his lab surrounded by overa dozen students, and then Miller slowly drawls, "And that's just my TAs, not students." Since 2002 the gap has widened further with Wells publishing with the "Politically Incorrect…" series and Behe delivering lectures at religious conferences. There is not even a pretence of science. When Miller's student won the Nobel recently any semblance of equivalence disappeared. So what then do the ID hacks do? Go political. And knwing htat this is a political fight what shd scientists do? Where they have finished off the farcical debates, some exit and prefer to spend their time at their labs. Others decide to take on the hacks at their own game. And they do a great job. So to cut a long story short, Bradford, some scientists do get political about ID because that's all there is to it.:smile:
Comment by agam — April 18, 2008 @ 8:09 am
April 18th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I know. That was why I used it as an example of a blog,
That is what I thought. The OP seems to be saying that Myers and Dawkins are wrong if they do just that. Am I missing something here?
Do you really think Evolution News and Views is not political (i.e., that all there political posts go to the other blog)?
Easier - it is less letters. Not sure how it would have been relevant though.
I (and I think other ID skeptics) am not railing against the ID movement just because it is a socio-political movement. Boy have you missed the point! I have no particular dislike of socio-political movements, and I even agree with some of them. I rail against it becase of its specific socio-political agenda and because of the frankly dishonest manner in which it promotes that agenda.
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 8:11 am
April 18th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Pixie:
Could you clarify something for me when you say dishonest do you mean that the movements arguments not factual or do you believe that the DI are actually lying? IOW They know that ID is false but present it as true to advance a political agenda
As someone who is not part of the movement but who sympathizes with it I can assure you that those folks are true believers.
They really believe that Darwinism leads eventually to Atheism and atheism leads to the destruction of society.
They really believe that design is empiricaly evident in nature.
They really believe ID views are being suppressed by the powers that be.
These might all be false beliefs but they are not deliberate lies.
If by dishonest you simply mean they are sneaky this is exactly what they would say about your side. They believe that when you say that Darwinism is neutral about the existence of God or when you say that no bias exists in academia you are being dishonest for political reasons.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 18, 2008 @ 9:37 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Hi FFM
I do not doubt that the members of the DI truly believe in ID. Where I think they are dishonest is:
*Claiming that for them ID has nothing to do with religion (as you say, "They really believe that Darwinism leads eventually to Atheism")
*Claiming they do not want ID taught in school (how can they possibly be happy having evolution taught to their children if they truly believe it is wrong)
*Quote-mining (eg here or here)
* Other dishonest tactics (eg copyright theft)
I think they do honestly believe that the evidence for ID is out there. I suspect that that evidence is of a sort that you need to believe in God to be able to see it as evidence, and so they resort to these dishonest tactics to promote what they believe is the truth. "Lying for Jesus" is still lying.
I am not sure about this one. How come we have so many pro-ID books if ID is suppressed? I have no doubt that some IDists/creationist believe in a great Darwinisn Conspiracy, but surely people like Dembski are brighter than that?
Again, I wonder if this is true of all of them. How do they come to terms with the likes of Ken Miller, who accepts modern evolutionary theory, but is a commited Christian? I know some pretend he is not a "real" Christian, but all of them?
Yes, I can see how they would honestly believe that. However, academia (science really) is biased to theories that offer evidence, and the evidence for ID is scant at best (as Mike Gene readily agrees).
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 11:14 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Because it is obvious that genomic changes occur and equally obvious that natural selection favors change conferring reproductive advantages. So far no politics. But I get curious and tend to ask things that are not politically correct like, for example, where is the scientific evidence that natural selection would favor a series of chemical reactions on a lifeless planet whose outcome is a replicating life form? Politics? Does a proper response to this entail a list of the DI's sins? Oh wait. Ken Miller invented the pat response. God in the gaps. That's it Bradford. There are gaps to be filled and we know, without having obtained sufficient empirical supporting data, that someday data will close that gap so as to preclude any hypothesis favoring intelligent design. It's about politics huh? I think we can agree about that much.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 11:22 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yes, I am certain that most IDers believe that. However, there have been instances of deception, such as in the Kitzmiller case, where they purposefully hid their connection with creationism and religion, a.ka. cdesignproponentists. When civilisation is being undermined by
CopernicanismLutheranismsecular materialism, then extreme measures may seem not only reasonable, but necessary.Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 11:27 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Ah, but you know only too well that a subset of mainstreamers, that would include your beloved Richard Dawkins, believe that ID leads to theism and we can't have that you know.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 11:28 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Zachriel, your harkening centuries back to Galileo and Luther encourages the counter Nazisim/Darwinism responses.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 11:32 am
April 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
No, not politics.
No.
Not politics.
No.
Let's consider a Gap. Using his telescope, Galileo and his contemporaries could see mountains and craters on the moon, but only on the near side. (The Moon rotates so that it always shows the same face to Earth-bound observers.) Now what can we *reasonably* conjecture about the far side of the moon? It might be green cheese or even quintessence. But the evidence (e.g. observations of other planets) suggests that it should be comprised of mountains and craters, much like the near side. And certainly not made of green cheese or quintessence.
Do you consider this argument to be justified without actual observations of the far side?
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 11:46 am
April 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
My essay below fits this particular thread where the "angry yound man" represents the felt contrivance of the politically minded.
My view of intelligent design
When I point to something showing an intelligent design I am only pointing to a felt contrivance. A contrivance is an artifact left behind by life, or the universe. Note that life cannot be separated from the universe, and so it is ambiguous who, or what, is responsible for the contrivance. If the constants of the universe are found fine tuned for life, then the designer may seem to be removed from life. But before we can separate the designer from the universe we must also define life apart from the universe, and this we cannot do. Nevertheless, an artifact is something felt to be contrived merely because the apparent design is thought unexplained by chance and necessity.
Note that I said nothing about a white-haired designer that tinkers with his creation. What I am describing is a scientific view that is less related to creationism, or biblical literalism.
Now it is important to note that we must feel the contrivance, otherwise what is being reported is not a design by my understanding. If a contrivance is going to be useful to life then I would expect that life must also feel its own artifacts, otherwise life could not recognize itself (or empathize with itself) and the artifact would be useless. Therefore, in my view, design is something auxiliary to chance and necessity, and it is connected to self recognition.
To feel something contrived is special, as it brings anger to the neo-Darwinist that is unwilling to accept design. Therefore, the scientist must bring enough tolerance to deal with the evidence brought by intelligent design. Failure to consider evidence that refutes Darwin's theory implies that Darwinism is no longer science because Popper criterion of falsification is no longer satisfied. Darwinism becomes pseudo-science because of a deep dishonesty, and the effort then relies on the strong-arm censoring of all that talk negatively of Darwinism. The progression continues to the "end of history" as Hegel noted, and then the "cunning of reason" gives witness to the anger projected by an arrogant scientism. This is why the film "Expelled" is so important.
Given that we wish to advance science, rather than destroy it, we must take advantage of the "end of history" by teaching tolerance. It is tolerance that is needed to deal with our own self doubt. When we learn to internalize our self doubt, rather than depend on opposition to carry our own self doubt that we deny having, then we will be on the path to healing. We need to learn to oscillate with our own self doubt to return to the self evidence that can reveal a better science.
What I am describing is an intuitionist logic that reveals ontic meaning from our heated contrivances. This self cultivation is what defines life, in my view. It is the ontic cultivation that permits the expression of intelligence because this logic follows the universal grammar that has become self evident. We cling to our caricatures, and when we are challenged we express anger. But when the caricatures dissolve what is revealed is the ontic meaning that gave its support to the caricature; the feeling of euphoria replaces the anger as the training wheels come off. This is the innate oscillation that must be internalized.
Intelligence emerges from feelings by way of a universal grammar, and this has been our evolution. We are the spark of God that gave birth to the universe. This may sound arrogant, but I am describing yourself as much as I have described myself. The world shows intelligent design because "we" designed it, otherwise we would have never recognized ourselves in the heated arguments. The Logic is "in itself" and "for itself," as Hegel demanded.
Comment by Stephen — April 18, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The difference is that Dawkins doesn't misrepresent the science to argue his metaphysics. (Nor do I consider his arguments particularly persuasive or noteworthy.)
Kitzmiller was in 2005, with the court record indicating "inescapable" evidence of deception. I suggested people may justify their actions because of the perceived stakes, a threat to civilisation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Todd B. wrote:
I would agree that both sides (basic theism being one side and basic atheism the other) are both logically possible. However, I would dispute whether that makes them, metaphysically speaking, equal. I would argue that basic theism is better explanation why something versus nothing exists. Why there are rational physical constants or natural laws in the universe; why there is specified complexity; why there is mind and consciousness. Since theism is a better explanation it is the more reasonable position.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 18, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Zachriel:
It is reasonable to think the process that created one part of the moon would create the same effects on an unseen part. Here though is a better analogy. The engine in my car functions daily without any intelligent input (aside from me turning the ignition). I don't need an intelligent design theory to explain its travels or it sitting in front of my home. I do however need one to explain the origin of the machine which enables car function.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Zachriel:
Dover PA school policies a threat to civilization? Gross hyperbole. Also a license. If you are saving civilization you can do almost anything.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Bradford,
Interesting. You have a conjecture that natural selection worked with chemical reactions? What led you to this conjecture? What then would NS favour? Are you by any chance assuming that NS is a discrete object that can be measured? We don't know. And off all the conjectures we have today the one we can work with chemical reactions. That is the only fruitful line of thought.
Comment by agam — April 18, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Why do you say that? I say it's made of green cheese. Oh, you can point to other rotating planets, and how gravity tends to cause planets to compress into spheres, but I can wave my hands too.
The nature of a Gap is that you can fill it with whatever metaphysical paste you want. Nevertheless, there are valid scientific reasons to believe that life began as a natural process early in the Earth's history. All life has diversified from those early ancestors and all lines of scientific evidence point to abiogenesis. In the end, that may be incorrect, but that is what the science indicates.
Yes. We know about how cars are manufactured. Something about a hominid named Ford.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Bradford
Definitely, because I am explaining why I object to the DI. It is not because they are a socio-political movement, it is becaue of that list of sins.
It is all about politics. You lost the scientific argument decades ago.
You missed my point. I was pointing out that the DI were being dishonest by pretending theor ID is not based in religion. Richard Dawkins (who is not actually my beloved - please do not pretend that he is) is very open about his own convictions.
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Quite so. "The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating." Or watch the movie Expelled which marries images of Nazism with negative statements about Darwinism.
Precisely the point.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Oh, quite a few defenses of OOL ideas including the putative self-replicators of an RNA world.
Maybe you can get an answer to that question.
I don't apply NS concepts to chemistry but you need to spend some more time discussing things with those in your camp. You'd get a better idea as to what ID critics really believe or at least what they claim.
It's the approach that ultimately must lead to a cell. Does that approach seem plausible to you?
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Bradford: It is reasonable to think the process that created one part of the moon would create the same effects on an unseen part.
Which would be a complete non-sequitur based on what we know- not what we don't know.
You can wave your hands but IDists don't consider inquiries as to the origin of genomes hand waving. Or are you are saying goodbye to sound reason with your hand waving.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
It's about politics huh? I think we can agree about that much.
Then you can follow the comment you took that sentence from and give me the scientific explanation for life's origin. There is no scientific argument to lose if one is willing to accept half-baked origins theories.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Zach:
Apparently. Though I'm not sure that a handful of small-town school board members trying (and failing, very publicly) to get a disclaimer read or a book into the library is all that much of a threat to civilization. Since the argument has turned to politics on both 'sides', consider PZ Myers' reaction to a meeting between the POTUS and the Pope…
Note how PZ reveals an odd disconnect in his understanding of both politics and religion…
Last I checked, the Pope's a Catholic. Not all Christians are Catholics. And since when did getting elected POTUS make anybody the representative of faith? You'd think poor PZ is confused about what country he's lived in his entire, quite comfortable and privileged elite life. The King/Queen of England inherits a religious title. The President of the United States does not. Maybe PZ would be well served by a refresher course in civics before he declares himself Dictator for Life.
The comments are more entertaining, though…
Alex [#10] complains:
…as if, being a die-hard PZ acolyte and crusading Atheist 'elitist', poor Alex hasn't got either the smarts or the physical dexterity to turn off the idiot box. Hahaha!!!
Warren [#28] whines:
The epitome of secular morality and Atheist internalization of the 'true' message of Christ. And they wonder why they're having trouble convincing 'lesser' humanity that their scientism is all about REAL peace and love. Oy!
Neil [#53] suggests a fitting solution to his personal discomfort with powerful people he doesn't like…
Huh. I wonder if the SS and their counterparts with the Vatican are keeping tabs on stuff like this. For all the righteous indignation and self-congratulatory elitism going on under PZ's rock, these folks are dangerously dim. Wonder if PZ's heard about Edgar Ray Killen.
Comment by Joy — April 18, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Joy commenting:
The Pope a Nazi pedophile? Critics are right. It's politics from A to Z. They are just blind to their own political predilections.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Precisely. You want to interject some extraneous entity into a process that has all the scientific appearance of a natural event.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Just because you prefer a philosophy of science that takes all of your views as axiomatic (Randomness exists, mind is not fundamental, etc.) doesn't make 'all the scientific appearance of a natural event'. It just means your preconceived notions are confirmed. Just as many ID proponents' are.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Zachriel:
The appearance of life on a lifeless planet has no scientific appearances of a natural event. Scientific observations show life coming about through reproduction involving other living organisms. That's exactly the missing x factor needing to be accounted for. Your view of what is extraneous is subjective.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Bradford
I was being a little facetious. Of course there is much we do not know about science, including how life started. The point is that the DI seem unable or unwilling to offer any scientific argument. Therefore, I claim that they lost that battle long ago, and so now can only do politics.
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Pixie:
The point of this blog entry is that politics is not confined to the DI and evidence of that is on display in the comment section. I won't passively stand by and watch critics denigrate IDists by invoking the DI without returning the favor.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Randomness is a well-defined statistical property. As to mind, calling it "fundamental" doesn't seem to add anything to its description.
I believe Bradford is claiming a scientific basis for his claims. See, yes he is…
Just the tree of life is strong evidence of a natural origin. We know that life diversified from a primitive ancestral population. Knowing that rabbits and ducks, frogs and frenchmen descended from a common ancestor, and they in turn descended from primitive cellular organisms is an astounding discovery. All lines of descent point to one place.
Furthermore, we know that chemistry underlies all extant organic processes. We know that the simpliest replicator would be subject to selection. And we've seen macromolecules spontaneously assemble under a wide variety of conditions. We even have evidence that molecules may be able to self-replicate.
Without a complete theory of abiogenesis, we can't be sure. Maybe the far side of the Moon really is made of green cheese. Maybe it's a cheese shoppe for the unnamed telic entity. However, the evidence indicates a natural origin.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
It is strong evidence of common patterns among the genomes of living organisms. It does not explain the origin of an initial genome.
Then maybe you will answer agam's questions:
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Zach,
Randomness is 'well-defined' insofar as it doesn't really necessitate 'random' or 'unknown to anyone', merely 'unknown to us'. Whether anything is truly random, or whether things are planned via an intelligence greater than us, is a metaphysical position. With no positive evidence to back it up.
On the other hand, we use intelligence to figure out, predict, and plan things on a regular basis. We know mind exists. Chance, we merely postulate, especially when it comes to giving it magical, mystical force explanatory power via 'it happened, because random forces were random'.
I'm not Bradford. I think Bradford has a lot of good points, and our ideas coincide often. But as for me, if at the end of the day an OoL is ever found or even hinted at, it makes more sense to assume mind, rather than magic, was the driving force behind it.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Bradford,
Political bias shifts brain activity from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain that most correlates with reasoning. MRI data shows that political bias excites the emotional and pleasure centers of the brain. The more politicized one becomes, the more this phenomenon begins to mirror addiction.
Have you ever tried to argue with a drunk or a drug addict?
Pharyngula is a political bias crack-house, and PZ is the pusher.
Comment by chunkdz — April 18, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
UncommonDescent is a political bias crack-house, and and Dembski is the pusher. There are troops lined up on both sides, they are both armed with their fanatics, fundamentalists, crazy people, opinions, and distortions. For any accusation about "their side" there is are analogous accusations about "your side." Whenever one side spouts their political message the expected response will be the other side spouting theirs. Until Bradford's recent spat of politicizing this blog had previously managed to hold a higher standard in the time I've been following it.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 18, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
You seem to have conflated two assertions. Do you accept Common Descent? Do fish and fishmen share a common ancestor?
I believe agam is pointing to an aspect of your confusion. The biotic world is subject to natural selection. The abiotic world is not.
Abiogenetics posits a threshold between abiotic and biotic where selection has an increasingly important role. How this might work is still unknown, but certain reactions or networks might be favored. There's been some interesting work with protocells, including showing how vesicles may have formed and vesicles enclosing RNA grow at the expense of those without RNA.
Chen, The Emergence of Cells During the Origin of Life, Science 2006.
Chen, et al., The emergence of competition between model protocells, Science 2004.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Bradford
Of course there is politics on both sides! Do you think the scientists should just ignoring what the DI does? The DI is promoting pseudo-science in a dishonest fashion, so of course the scientists will respond, and how can that response not be politics?
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Frankly, no.
UD may have its faults, but at the very least the posts tend to be detached, and the comments largely less vile than what PZ spews. And UD hardly ever touches on political issues (aside from Davescot's global warming obsession) - in fact, I always get a kick out of the claims of UD being some kind of hardcore christian site, when they've positively talked about the perceptions of agnostics, muslims, buddhists, and even shinto practicioners.
It does have its faults, but some trends just aren't mirrored.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Bradford:
Well, PZ's acolytes are really sort of pitiable for all their idolization of bluster and total impolitic (sort of a cross between Asperger's and Tourette's Syndromes) diarrhea of the mouth. I always imagine the fat/skinny geek living in Mom's basement who hasn't seen the sun in years, never got through puberty with a man-size voice, and who were picked on mercilessly by the jocks in high school. But even milquetoasts occasionally turn physical against a reality they never learned to live in… I've seen junior high school kids get in trouble for less hyperbolic expositions.
chunkdz:
Whoa! You nailed it perfectly! Nice turn of phrase.
Comment by Joy — April 18, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I'm not conflating anything. I'm noting where scientific evidence leads and where it stops. Common descent notions do not extend to precellular time eras.
I'm not a bit confused. A chain of abiogenesis events would extend to an abiotic world. If selection is not a factor in such a world then you are offering green cheese explanations.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Pixie:
The best response to dishonesty is unambiguous scientific data refuting it. When critics lack such data they resort to politics. Shame on them.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
There is a specific distribution involved. Randomness can be defined as lack of correlation.
You had indicated that I thought randomness was axiomatic. Randomness is a well-defined mathematical concept. However, it is no more 'real' than other mathematical constructs, such as ellipses used to describe planetary orbits.
Consider the distribution of lottery numbers.
Do you have any evidence that lottery numbers are biased by "an intelligence greater than us" Or would a statistical distribution be a more appropriate predictor?
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Todd:
You and your cohorts politicized the dialog by conflating IDists with alleged dishonesty on the part of an "ID movement." As the comments in this thread show politics is a weapon that critics are eager to use.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Perhaps, but he does know his Cephalopoda.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
chunkdz:
Well said. The brain activity of critics began shifting when their "movement" tactics were exposed.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Zach,
Let's avoid the realism of numbers and concepts discussion and agree there - randomness isn't truly (necessarily) 'random'. It's a statement about our own knowledge as it stands. FAPP random. The content of this post is partly random to you, since you couldn't predict letter for letter what I'd reply with. But it's certainly not random to me.
No more real than other mathematical constructs.
At what stage?
Are you asking me if there have been rigged lotteries in the past? You can't be doing that; it's too obvious.
Are you asking me if an intelligence is capable of creating a statistical distribution? Again, you can't be doing that. Too obvious.
Are you asking me for evidence that intelligence is the ultimate backdrop to all apparent randomness? Well, between the rigged lotteries and the creation of algorithms for the purposes of FAPP randomness, it looks like I have something to call on. And since, in principle, intelligence can explain everything (and possibly more) than randomness can, I'm going to have to ask you for some proof of any extraordinary claims you make re: the existence of true randomness.
Which I'd rather not do, and just raise awareness to the nonsense that gets smuggled in with science constantly. But alas, the process is too politicized now - maybe those ID proponents can patch things up.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Bradford
Scientists have a huge amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution (not the origin of life, but the DI are very much against the theory of evolution). The DI ignore it, or distort it (pretending it supports their position, or misrep[resenting scientists as supporting their position). The scientific data refuting it is there. Is it unambiguous? Virtually all biologists would say yes. Life is complicated, and the theory of evoluton is too, allowing the DI to exploit people's ignorance.
Scientists are still doing science, they are still learning about how evolution works, they are still presenting the unambiguous scientific data to the public. But that does not stop the DI. Do you think scientists should not also use politics as well as unambiguous scientific data?
What exactly do we mean by politics? Is it politics to present unambiguous scientific data to the public to refute someone elses's pseudoscience? I think some would say yes. So your "best response" is arguably politics. If you seriously want to stop scientists engaging in politics, perhaps you should state exactly that term would cover.
Is your position that politics are immoral? Or only immoral for scientists? Or only immoral for those you disagree with?
Comment by The Pixie — April 18, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
That's why I said "seem" and asked for clarification. Do you accept Common Descent?
That is not known at this time. But some sort of continuity, even if not clear lineages, is required.
We lack a complete theory, but we can expect that some sort of selection would be involved at some point, but this may not resemble the natural selection we are familiar with. For instance, the formation of macromolecules, though not sufficient to account for life, is a necessary prerequisite that doesn't require selection. Perhaps among a few quintillion such macromolecules there is a replicator. But no one knows. Yet.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Pixie:
Pixie, for years I've been following these exchanges and have noted deliberate attempts to link IDists to a movement based on political machinations of the DI. If the practice of politics by the DI is OK by you then come out and say so explicitly. It is not IDists who use the "movement" charge in an attempt to tar their opponents. I've brought out examples of critics playing politics to underlie the fact that politics is practiced by all sides so all sides would have their own movement.
If your objection to the DI is based on honesty then you need to be specific. I'm not going to allow the thread to become target practice but will note that I witnessed Dr. Michael Egnor become a target of allegations of dishonesty soon after he began blogging. When I looked at the specific allegations of different internet critics I realized that the dishonest charges were based on Egnor's conclusions rather than the specific data references he made. When integrities are impugned based on interpretations of data then the accuser better have more on hand than a subjective personal assessment.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Then circles are not truly (necessarily) circular.
I've already defined randomness as a mathematical construct. It's an abstraction, just like an ellipse. (You do understand that planetary orbits are not actually ellipses.)
Are you afraid of providing a direct answer? You volunteered "we use intelligence to figure out, predict, and plan things on a regular basis". So I asked you if you have any evidence that lottery numbers are biased by "an intelligence greater than us" Or would a statistical distribution be a more appropriate predictor?
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
I myself have no intent to lump you with people in the 'ID Movement'. But it makes me wonder why you want to adopt the term ID, rather than a different term.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Bradford,
You constantly ignore the point that both sides are political while continuing to hurl insults and making claims like:
You are personally engaged in everyone one of the above yourself. In every case the direction of those statements can be reversed and still apply. You sort of admitted that you are being political yourself when you said:
And yet to continue to blame the "other side" for doing exactly what you are doing. So far no critic has denied being political in this discussion. The only person who has not bluntly admitted to being political seems to be you. You claim we should counter the opinions of ID with "hard data" but ID is not based on hard data, its based on wild speculation and opinion. The ID movement has no data whatsoever so they resorted to nothing but politics and sophistry years ago. The proper response to politics is counter-politics. Just because our side supports science does not mean we think science is the only tool in the tool box. I believe in hammers too, yet I still use screwdrivers and wrenches. If ID had any "hard data" then our side would show that the reality behind that data doesn't support the ID conclusion. If the data did support an ID conclusion then we would change our views to accept ID. Instead ID has only politics so we rightly respond with our politics. We're just honest enough to admit that's what we're doing. Given your stance and despite my honesty you still had the gull to claim that I am "lost it in a sea of hypocrisy," now that's irony. Have you checked a mirror lately?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 18, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Zach,
A circle doesn't have to be perfectly circular for science to do its job. But there's still a reality we can comment on, and a reality we must speculate about.
Do you have any evidence that 'random' events are truly random? You're citing randomness and unforeseen chance as having creative power. But the only creative power we have positive evidence of is through our intellect. Everything you could rally 'primal chance' to explain, someone else could rally 'fundamental intelligence' to explain. But only one of these things indisputably exists to some degree.
I've got nothing to fear here - I'm the one with the evidence.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
That's blatently dishonest. In the two ID locations I blog at I've witnessed numerous blog entries citing hard data to support broader points. There is nothing wildly speculative about citing specific peer reviewed papers to support a point.
Good evidence of chunkdz's point that shifts in brain activity from the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex occur when critics talk politics in lieu of science. Since critics have used analogies to argue for ateleological putative processes in this thread let me do the same. DNA has properties found in coded systems whose origin leaves little doubt. The digital signaling in evidence strongly suggests an intelligent source. Politics? Then so is the claim that an imagined prebiotic process strongly suggests an ateleological natural process.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I thought it would have been clear. Your statement randomness isn't random doesn't make sense, anymore than saying a circle isn't circular. A circle is a mathematical abstraction. It has the property, by definition, of being circular. Physical objects may more or less closely resemble a circle. They are not circles, though. Circles are abstractions.
You *volunteered* "we use intelligence to figure out, predict, and plan things on a regular basis". So I asked you if you have any evidence that lottery numbers are biased by "an intelligence greater than us" Or would a statistical distribution be a more appropriate predictor?
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Todd:
That comment was a reaction to a claim that the Pope is a Nazi pedophile. If you perceive that (Critics are right. It's politics from A to Z. They are just blind to their own political predilections.) as an insult then too bad. I make no apologies for it.
Comment by Bradford — April 18, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
And I'm not talking about abstractions that are useful as convenient descriptions, but actual realities. Is a circle perfectly circular? It's typically not a concern in science - we know what you mean by circle, 'close enough for the given requirements' will do. Is something random truly random? Again, not a concern with science - my reply has aspects which, to you, are entirely random. Unpredictable. From my perspective, of course, they're not random.
You don't want to talk about fundamental realities. Or at least, not on anyone's terms but yours.
And my reply was that a statistical distribution being apt in no way renders judgment on the presence of an intellect driving what's described. I did say that we have direct and undeniable evidence of intelligence - care to deny this? I added that in principle, intelligence could fundamentally explain everything 'random' is proposed to explain fundamentally, and then some. Would you like to deny that instead?
But at heart: If you assert that chance, not randomness, is the driving force of creation in the universe, care to offer up some evidence of the truly, rather than apparently, random actually existing? Or is evidence something only intellectual opponents need to supply?
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
You ascribed a view to me, "Randomness exists", that doesn't even have an unambiguous meaning.
If you have evidence of manipulation, it can certainly be used to help predict the distribution of results.
chance, not randomness? Can you explain the difference in how you are using those terms?
driving force of creation in the universe? I thought gravity was rather important. It is a driving force in the creation of planets, stars and galaxies.
care to offer up some evidence of the truly, rather than apparently, random actually existing? Again, you keep using terms in a personal manner. I've tried to resolve those differences, but to little effect. Random is an abstraction. It has no physical existence. Distributions of events can more or less resemble a random distribution, but no finite sequence can be said to be without pattern.
I've offered evidence. If you examine a modern lottery for numbers and winners, you'll find that they are reasonably consistent with an expected random distribution. If you find otherwise, you should alert the authorities with your evidence.
"”
Added: You demand evidence, but you seem to be making a claim about *unevidenced* teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — April 18, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Zach,
So you're saying you don't rely on true randomness - fundamentally unguided, unforeseen events - as a creative force? That'd be an interesting admission from you.
I'd love to see evidence of fundamental randomness.
Random is a property, a descriptive trait. In one use it's uncontroversial - 'that which I cannot predict is, to me, random'. On the other end of the scale, it's a metaphysical claim. 'Things occur without intelligent direction or purpose at any point in the chain's history'.
A lottery's results can both be reasonably consistent with an expected random distribution, yet known even by human agents. This has happened in casinos - someone figures out the RNG on a keno machine given the right conditions, and they make a killing. Trust me, the authorities were notified in that particular case.
But hey, if you're not asserting that fundamental randomness is a creative force, I've no dispute with you.
Comment by nullasalus — April 18, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Zachriel,
Not surprising. He spends quite a bit of time with his poda inserted in his cephalo.
Comment by chunkdz — April 18, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Zach to nullasalus:
Statistical prediction is not necessarily random either. It's just a way to treat what we don't know. I'm a little surprised you haven't yet pulled out the old standby 'proof' of randomness… radioactive decay. Maybe you've learned that it's a poor appeal, being fully caused and highly predictable.
The isotope is unstable. Its nucleus is unstable due to extra neutrons or protons, its shells are unbalanced, it has no choice but to decay - release the instability as energy and/or particles to reach a more stable state. This can be a multi-stage process. We know how unstable it is by how quickly its atoms decay - which we measure quite precisely. We know how it decays quite precisely as well. We can measure the energy the atoms release and what kind of particles (at what energy levels) are emitted. And we know precisely what element[s] it will become on its way to stability.
The "randomness" attributed to the process is merely an artifact of our point of view, and how we consider time from this level. We can't tell which individual atom will decay at any precise moment of measurement. But we are not looking at individual atoms. Don't have to do that in order to have precise knowledge of the process - complete with accurate predictive ability.
Charlie Darwin never knew about probability distributions. Nor did he know about genes, "mutational hotspots," stress response, epigenetics, or any of that. It's okay that we know more 150 years later. I don't think Charlie would mind. Would something like endogenous adaptive mutation be such a horror to science? Would front-loading? Why?
Comment by Joy — April 18, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
April 18th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Bradford
This seems a very dubious argument, if I may say so. "Politics" is a nebulous term that can cover as much or as little as you want. If seems to me that if I say politics is okay, you will take that as agree that the dishonest practices of the DI are acceptable. If I say politics are wrong, you will continue to point out that scientists also engage in politics.
I have already listed the reasons I object to the DI, and the mere fact that they use politics is not on