The significance of being Brief
by KrauzeAn Amicus Brief to the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial has been signed by 85 persons, urging the Judge to "affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead". Although I'm far from being in complete agreement with it, the Brief and the response to it raise some interesting issues about the possibility of intelligent design research. Quotations are available here, and the entire Brief can be downloaded as PDF here (beware: Slow download). Over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton is criticizing it.
Now, I don't support teaching intelligent design in schools, and there are some problems with the Brief - for example, it gives the erroneous impression that there exists a theory of intelligent design. In his response, Brayton makes some good points about why discussions about science shouldn't be resolved in the classroom, which I am in complete agreement with him about.
However, Brayton also makes some comments which I think displays a naive understanding of the sociological aspects of the discussion. Responding to the claim that the ruling could limit the academic freedom of intelligent design proponents, Brayton writes:
"The 1981 McLean v. Arkansas ruling directly engaged the question of what is and is not legitimate science, ruling that "creation science" was religion, not science, and therefore could not be taught in public school science classrooms. Did that ruling mean that scientists could no longer research creation science? Of course not. If anything, creation science groups are stronger now than they were then. The Institute for Creation Research continues to go along its merry way, the Geoscience Research Institute at Loma Linda hasn't shut down, and Answers in Genesis is opening a $25 million creation science museum soon.
The same thing is at issue in this case, whether intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory or a more vague form of creationism designed to skirt the previous rulings. This inevitably means the court has to consider the question of whether ID is a legitimate scientific theory or not, just as they had to do the same for creation science in McLean and Edwards. But regardless of the ruling, it isn't going to stop anyone from doing research on ID or advocating for their position. Hell, they don't do any such research now! The only thing stopping them from doing such research now is their lack of a model and their focus on public relations over science."
Sure, a ruling that intelligent design is religion wouldn't prevent intelligent design supporters from making their case on blogs, in web articles, or in privately-funded "creation science museums". However, let's imagine a professor at a university reading Brayton's characterization of the sorry state of intelligent design research, and deciding to do something about it. So he formulates a design hypothesis, outlines its predictions, and tries getting some lab time and bright graduate students to test them. How would the university administration respond to his request? Assuming a court has found intelligent design to be "religion, not science", it's not hard to guess: Reject the request, as it would be violating the Constitution.
In fact, I can easily imagine that sometime in the future, more cases like Sternberg's and Gonzalez's surface. And that, assuming a court decision has labelled intelligent design "religion", the critics will use this ruling to defend their behavior, claiming that they're just expressing concern for the separation of church and state. At that point, we can revisit Brayton's argument.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Krauze:
The administration of a public secondary school would have to take this position, and arguably the administration of a state college or university could take this position, but a private college or university would not be required to do so (the Establishment Clause of the constitution is concerned with state organizations, not, obviously private institutions). While there would obviously be some fallout with state institutions of higher learning, I don't think it would be an issue with high school administrations. As a rule, very little original academic research comes out of high schools.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 5, 2005 @ 7:19 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 3:15 am
Hi Eric,
Of course no research is done at high schools, which is why I specifically said "university".
The distinction between private and public universities is well taken, but what's the point? Are you saying that professors employed at public universities don't conduct research?
Comment by Krauze — October 6, 2005 @ 3:15 am
October 6th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Scientific research is scientific research. Period. If that research leads us to the design inference then so be it.
I believe that is what confuses ID critics/ anti-IDists. They want to deny the design inference or tell us we can't have one.
However it should be noted that when asked for the criteria for determining that something is the result of unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes (as opposed to intelligently designed, which does have a specified criteria) they respond with nothing. IOW the determination of non-design rests solely on the disbelief of a designer.
If the "court" rules that ID is religion, I would have to read that decision as ID does not fit with any definition of religion currently used and does not fit the criteria of religion already determined by a court of law.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 8:37 am
October 6th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Scientific research is scientific research. Period. If that research leads us to the design inference then so be it.
I believe that is what confuses ID critics/ anti-IDists. They want to deny the design inference or tell us we can't have one.
Or is it do they want to know what we are going to do with that design inference? And until they get an answer they like they will deny the design inference?
OK what can we do with a design inference? With intelligent design comes intent. So intent becomes a driving force, as in "what were/ was the designer's(s') intention(s)?" That gives us another angle to approach the data/ evidence.
Also intent is a powerful force. However, only by acknowledging something can you hope to us it…
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 9:48 am
October 6th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Krauze:
I agree with you that an adverse Kitzmiller decision will probably have some impact on the availability of grant money for ID research. However, there are plenty of private research institutions out there that will not be affected by any First Amendment issues. I think a much bigger barrier for ID even in the wake of Kitzmiller will remain ID's lack of scientific respectability. After all, Lehigh can't use that excuse to deny Behe funding. It's been almost 10 years since Darwin's Black Box, and the only ID-related paper I know of that Behe has produced since then hasn't fared that well with the scientific community.
Surely the DI can help out with any funding limitations between now and whenever it is that ID researchers can start taking the assumption of design and using it to explain something about evolution that NDE has been unable to explain. If ID starts making some valuable contributions to the field of evolutionary biology, I'm sure the money will start flowing. But so far that hasn't happened.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 11:47 am
October 6th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Joe G:
We've been this route before, but I thought I'd ask the question: can you think of a method, even in principle, for determining that something was not designed? I'm pretty sure it can't be done.
If you were merely asking for NDE's methodology for exploring how a particular organism or biological structure came to be, I think you could get an answer. But if you're asking for how NDE would exclude the possibility of design — as I've said before — I don't think there's any conceivable method for doing so. This is why scientists state that ID is unfalsifiable.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 11:56 am
October 6th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
ericmurphy:
We've been this route before, but I thought I'd ask the question: can you think of a method, even in principle, for determining that something was not designed? I'm pretty sure it can't be done.
And I have told you that is not how science is conducted. Science does not try to demonstrate a negative.
However if the object in question does not meet the criteria laid down (for the design inference), then there is no reason to (initially) infer design. IOW by properly applying the EF the object in question would not get to the design inference node.
The fact remains that we have methods in place for determining design from non-design. Those methods work and those methods involve more than a toss of a coin.
The figures on Easter Island were once thought to be the rsult of ET. However through investigation it was determined that humans had the tchnology and resources to build them. Does that mean that ET didn't build them? No, but there is no longer a requirement to do so. IOW Occam sliced off an unnecessary layer.
ericmurphy:
But if you're asking for how NDE would exclude the possibility of design"”as I've said before"”I don't think there's any conceivable method for doing so. This is why scientists state that ID is unfalsifiable.
I am asking for the criteria used to make the blindwatchmaker determination. IDists have offered up specific criteria for determining design. what is NDE's criteria? Something positive as opposed to just a refusal to allow the design inference.
As for how to exclude the design inference, that is being done right now. And as has been demonstrated ID is falsifiable. There is no way around it. The "scientists" who say that ID is unfalsifiable should get together with the scientists who have attempted to falsify it.
But how can we test the premise that random variations culled by natural selection led to the evolution of the whale? Impossible to test and therefore impossible to falsify.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
ericmurphy:
If ID starts making some valuable contributions to the field of evolutionary biology, I'm sure the money will start flowing. But so far that hasn't happened.
But as has been shown the NDE hasn't made any contributions. So what keeps the money flowing to fund its survival? Hope?
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Joe G:
It is exactly how science is conducted. You're familiar, are you not, with the concept of the "null hypothesis" In general, falsifiability is critical to a theory's credibility. You say that ID is falsifiable, but again, you're failing to make a distinction between the falsifiability of certain claims ID makes, and the falsifiability of ID itself. It is impossible to falsify the claim that life was designed. If you believe I'm incorrect when I say that, please provide me with a method for proving that life could not have been designed.
Also, isn't ID in fact trying to prove a negative? Isn't ID trying to prove that life could not have evolved?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Hi Eric,
"I agree with you that an adverse Kitzmiller decision will probably have some impact on the availability of grant money for ID research. However, there are plenty of private research institutions out there that will not be affected by any First Amendment issues."
Not so fast. Brayton characterized as "utter nonsense" the possibility that the ruling could harm academic freedom. However, it's now clear that Brayton is wrong, as the possibility of design research at public universities (who account for no small part of research) will be affected by the ruling.
Now, private universities aren't affected by Amendment issues, but there are other sociological aspects that will be magnified by an official court ruling that ID=religion. These aspects have been discussed on this blog before, and there's no evidence to suggest that private universities are out of the ordinary in this regard.
Comment by Krauze — October 6, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Krauze:
But what if ID really is religion? It kind of looks that way to me, espcially given the stated agenda of individuals such as Dembski and Wells. Even IDists seem comfortable with the idea that the identity and nature of the Designer is a religious, not a scientific issue (at least there's one place ID and NDE agree!).
I guess I could argue that academic freedom wouldn't be curtailed; it would merely be redirected. I don't think there's any reason, in principle, why someone couldn't get a grant for research in ID from the philosophy or religion department of an academic institution. I don't think the biology department would prevent a researcher from using their equipment, so long as the funding was available from some source…
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 4:01 pm
Joe G:
You've said this several times before, but on reading an article on Jonathan Wells, I came across something that argues against your position on this subject. Let's look at biomedical research. When conducting animal testing, researchers often start with inexpensive, but somewhat distantly-related, small mammals such as mice or rats. Later, they may experiment using lower primates, such as macaques. Later still, if it looks necessary, they might research using chimps.
Notice that the don't use molluscs, then frogs, then birds? Why is that? Is it because you can draw a phylogenetic tree which shows that as you move from mice to macaques to chimps to humans, you're getting to more closely related organisms? From molluscs to frogs to birds, you're getting closer, but really only in the sense that as you go from Johannesburg to Tangiers to Paris you're getting closer to New York. Wouldn't it better to go from Rio to Miami to Washington, D.C. if you wanted to get to New York?
I guess you could argue that the increasing genetic closeness from mice to macaques to chimps to humans is a result of "convergent evolution," but again, you're converging on a really tiny target from a huge range of possibilities. Isn't it more parsimonious to assume common descent with modification, which is a central tenet of neodarwinian evolution?
Anyway, this is getting pretty far afield from Krauze's point. But it's something to think about, I think.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 6, 2005 @ 4:01 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
And I have told you that is not how science is conducted. Science does not try to demonstrate a negative.
ericmurphy:
It is exactly how science is conducted.
Thank you for demonstrating you don't understand how science operates. Anyone with any knowledge knows that you can't prove a negative.
The "null hypothesis" has nothing to do with trying to demonstrate the negative.
ericmurphy:
It is impossible to falsify the claim that life was designed.
Yes, it can be done. Just demonstrate that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for life arising from non-living matter and biological ID falls. It falls because, as with Easter Island and ET, a designer becomes an unnecessary ingredient.
ericmurphy:
Also, isn't ID in fact trying to prove a negative? Isn't ID trying to prove that life could not have evolved?
No and no. ID is trying to show that life was designed. The confirming/ independent evidence is that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes cannot account for it.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 5:41 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
But as has been shown the NDE hasn't made any contributions. So what keeps the money flowing to fund its survival? Hope?
ericmurphy:
You've said this several times before, but on reading an article on Jonathan Wells, I came across something that argues against your position on this subject.
You are confusing change with the the NDE premise of common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms via some blindwatchmaker process.
Common descent does not equal CD via a blindwatchmaker process. And that is the point.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 5:44 pm
October 6th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
ericmurphy:
But what if ID really is religion? It kind of looks that way to me, espcially given the stated agenda of individuals such as Dembski and Wells.
Do you even know how religion is defined? Obviously not. ID does not say anything about worship or giving service to.
Comment by Joe G — October 6, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Joe G:
Just asking: Do you think I know anything about anything? Am I expected to constantly prove to you that I'm not an idiot? I post a lot of stuff to these sites, and you're the only one who constantly questions my intelligence? I have to say, I'm starting to take it personally. Can we try to maintain the civil level of discourse here? I don't remember ever having impugned your intelligence.
Anyway, are you familiar with the stated agendas of Dembski and Wells? Because they are both based on religion. Are you familiar with Dembski's statement in March 2004? Are you familiar with Wells' involvement with the Unification Church?
The fact that ID does not make any statements about religion (and it's not hard to think of reasons why) does not mean that ID doesn't have a religious agenda, or that it's not driven by religious thinking.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 12:27 am
October 7th, 2005 at 12:33 am
Joe G:
Demonstrating that undirected processes can account for life arising from non-life would not falisify ID. It simply wouldn't. It would render a designer unnecessary, but it would not prove that life was not designed. It is not possible to prove that anything was not designed.
You're definitely right that you can't prove a universal negative. But that's exactly what ID is trying to do. ID claims that undirected processors cannot adequately explain evolution. How is that not trying to prove a universal negative?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 12:33 am
October 7th, 2005 at 1:12 am
Joe G:
Joe, I can't even tell if you believe in common descent at all. At times you seem to, but at other times you seem to deny the evolution happens at all above the species level. And you've never come out and said if you in fact believe that evolution does happen above the species level. This seems like a simple point that should have been clarified weeks ago. It's still not clear.
I don't know why I bother, but here goes: do you deny common descent with modification or not? I don't care, at this point, whether it's a "blind watchmaker" process or not. What I want is the answer to a simple question: do you, or do you not, deny common descent with modification? It's a yes or no question.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 1:12 am
October 7th, 2005 at 8:18 am
ericmurphy:
Demonstrating that undirected processes can account for life arising from non-life would not falisify ID.
It would falsify biological ID.
ericmurphy:
It would render a designer unnecessary, but it would not prove that life was not designed.
Science is not about proving anything. Once a designer is rendered unnecessary ID falls. It is as simple as that.
ericmurphy:
You're definitely right that you can't prove a universal negative. But that's exactly what ID is trying to do. ID claims that undirected processors cannot adequately explain evolution.
Claiming something is not the same as offering proof of it. If you want to falsify ID all you have to do is to show that unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes can account for it. IOW falsify the claim.
Comment by Joe G — October 7, 2005 @ 8:18 am
October 7th, 2005 at 8:28 am
To Eric,
If you want to say ID is religious or make any other assertions it is up to you to substantiate them. Saying ID = religion demonstrates a lack of understanding of both ID and religion. I am not going to apologize for pointing out the obvious. If it offends you then either change your tone or substantiate your claims.
Wells' & Dembski's personal PoV does not affect ID any more than Dawkinns' atheism means that the NDE is an atheistic theory. I am sure evolutionists don't want to go there in a court of law.
ericmurphy:
do you deny common descent with modification or not?
I accept what the data demonstrates. Right now there isn't any data that demonstrates that the transformations required by common descent with modification from some unknown population of single-celled organisms is even possible. IOW it is truly a belief to do so (believe in CD w/ mod).
I am trying not to delve into beliefs and I am trying to focus on what is scientific.
What is a species? The "scientific" definition is ambiguous at best. But even in its ambiguity Creationists have accepted speciation (ie the poorly defined "macroevolution") for over 200 tears- since the time of Karl von Linne.
Comment by Joe G — October 7, 2005 @ 8:28 am
October 7th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Joe G:
Here I go with more repetition:
"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed…And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done — and he's not getting it." — Wm. Dembski, Fellowship Baptist Church, Waco, TX, March 7, 2004.
"He [Rev. Sun Myung Moon] frequently criticized Darwin's theory that all living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity…Father's fords, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationsts had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." — Jonathan Wells, http://www.tparents/org/Librar....
Does that substantiate my my assertion?
If ID's most prominent supporters are clearly and unabashedly driven by religious concerns, then by what reasoning is ID not religious?
In fact, "evolutionists" are already going there in a court of law, even as we speak. After all, there's nothing in the constitution that says atheism is banned from the classroom.
Demonstrating that life could have arisen from non-life does not falsify ID in any way, unless you can a) prove that life did arise from non-life by undirected processes (with what? a videotape of it happening?), and you still would be unable to prove that those undirected processes were definitely not created by a designer. You can't do it, Joe. It can't be done.
I knew you wouldn't answer the question. Further, your assertion that there's no evidence that undirected processes cannot account for evolution is flat-out false. We've been over this again and again, I've given you plenty of evidence, and if you want to make such assertions, you're going to have to demonstrate why that evidence isn't "evidence." I've been asking you to do this for weeks, and you've totally failed to do so.
I cannot believe you're going to maintain that there's more evidence for the existence of a designer than that undirected processes can account for common descent with modification. You'd think after all this time I'd get used to it, but I guess I just never will.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hi Eric,
"But what if ID really is religion? It kind of looks that way to me, espcially given the stated agenda of individuals such as Dembski and Wells."
Remember Ruse's distinction.
"Even IDists seem comfortable with the idea that the identity and nature of the Designer is a religious, not a scientific issue (at least there's one place ID and NDE agree!)."
I don't think the identity and nature of the Designer is a religious issue. The human mind is always trying to fit reality into neat little boxes, so that if something doesn't fit into one box, it must fit into another. Well, there are some questions that science isn't currently capable of answering, but that doesn't mean that those questions are religious. "What did I dream last night?" is one such question, and "What is the psychoanalytical profile of a non-human designer no one has ever even seen?" is another.
"I guess I could argue that academic freedom wouldn't be curtailed; it would merely be redirected. I don't think there's any reason, in principle, why someone couldn't get a grant for research in ID from the philosophy or religion department of an academic institution."
For academic freedom to be redirected, some doors would have to open as others close. Do you know of any philosophy or religion departments who wouldn't currently fund ID research, but who would do so if ID was ruled to be religious?
"I don't think the biology department would prevent a researcher from using their equipment, so long as the funding was available from some source…"
From the Gonzalez case, we already know that some critics want university administration to take affirmative action against professors professing ID. Any doubts that a ruling labelling ID as "religion" will put a stronger card on the hands of those critics?
Comment by Krauze — October 7, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
October 7th, 2005 at 10:52 pm
Krauze:
A few points:
I guess it depends on the nature of the designer. If the designer is some sort of physical entity, which is immanent in the universe, and which is constrained by physical law, then presumably the nature and identity of the designer is not a religious question. If, however, the designer that ID has in mind is a supernatural being, which can suspend physical law at whim (as Michael Behe apparently believes) than I think the nature and identity of the designer is pretty much by definition a religious question. You might want to check out an essay I wrote a little while ago that tangentially is concerned with this issue.
I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to whether a religion department would fund research into ID if ID were ruled to be a religious concept. I don't see why they wouldn't, but who knows? If the Kitzmiller case rules ID out of public education classrooms, I guess we'll find out.
I have the feeling (and this isn't something I'd testify to) that if Intelligent Design advocates could come up with some research that really did advance the state of knowledge of evolutionary biology (i.e., demonstrated what could have happened rather that what couldn't possibly have happened), at least some funding would be available. Lots of research has trouble getting funding, even if there are no religious issues involved. How easy is it to get funding for, say, cold fusion research?
You're probably right that the religious angle makes things more difficult for ID research to get funded. But when you have people like William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, and Michael Behe explicitly injecting religious concerns into the debate, I think that's kind of inevitable. And I think this goes right to the heart of Ruse's point. When organizations like the DI produce documents like the "Wedge Document," it's going to make people suspect ID's motives ("fund raising" or not). When so many ID proponents have made their religious agenda very public (at least in front of friendly audiences), you're going to get push-back from the scientific community, which generally likes to keep religion out of scientific investigations.
After all, how would theology professors discussing human ethics like it if behaviorists intruded upon their area of inquiry with discussions of stimulus-response?
And just so you know where I'm coming from, I'll admit to personal discomfort with the idea of a creator (or designer, if you like that term better) that is personally concerned with my life, and who created life through some sort of supernatural fiat. But I think objectively I'm more concerned with the utility of ID. I still think that in some ways ID forecloses inquiry into the mechanisms of evolution. If ID can assume a designer but still search for the ultimate mechanisms behind, e.g., the development of the flagellum, I don't think I have any huge objection to it. But when I hear Behe quoted as saying it was "poof!"ed into existence, I think we run the risk of shutting down the inquiry a little too soon.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 7, 2005 @ 10:52 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 12:00 am
There is not a shred of evidence that any intelligent design advocate or hypothesis has ever had any difficulty getting funding for research into ID. What are you worried about?
Or are the claims that Minnich and Behe do ID research really hooey? Which is it?
I suspect the truth remains as Judge Overton found it in 1981 — there is no creationist research published because there is no creationist research submitted to journals. And digging one level deeper, we discover that is because there is no creationist research (yeah, somebody will protest that ID shouldn't be equated with creationism; fine — my criticism stands either way).
For all the hoopla over how IDists have been "repressed," the reality is that no IDist has lost a job, had any research money cut, or been unable to publish any article they've written.
Comment by edarrell — October 8, 2005 @ 12:00 am
October 8th, 2005 at 9:01 am
ericmurphy:
If ID's most prominent supporters are clearly and unabashedly driven by religious concerns, then by what reasoning is ID not religious?
Again what one or more ID advocates say or do in their personal lives has NO effect on ID. If we used your (il)logic that would mean that the NDE is an atheistic theory because of the likes of Richard Dawkins and Wm. Provine.
ericmurphy:
Demonstrating that life could have arisen from non-life does not falsify ID in any way,
Yes it would. Do that and there wouldn't be any IDists left. ID would be falsified as one of its three premises would be wiped out.
ericmurphy:
Further, your assertion that there's no evidence that undirected processes cannot account for evolution is flat-out false.
I never asserted anything of the kind. Evolution has several meanings.
ericmurphy:
We've been over this again and again, I've given you plenty of evidence, and if you want to make such assertions, you're going to have to demonstrate why that evidence isn't "evidence." I've been asking you to do this for weeks, and you've totally failed to do so.
The "evidence" you have provided makes no mention of a mechanism and is subjective at best- meaning it can't be objectively tested nor verified.
Religion is all about worship and giving service to. ID says nothing about either. ID fails the dictionary definition of religion and it also fails the court's definition of religion.
Comment by Joe G — October 8, 2005 @ 9:01 am
October 8th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Joe G:
No, that doesn't follow. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists who believe in god. Ken Miller would be a good example. But how many IDists are atheists? How many are even agnostics? How many are even non-Christians?
Demonstrating that a designer is unnecessary does not falsify ID. To falsify ID it would be necessary that it is not possible even in principle for life not to have been designed. That's what "falsifying" a theory means.
Are we now reduced to word games? How many times have you stated that "unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes" cannot account for the evolution of life? Here's a direct quote:
The fact of the matter is that there's plenty of evidence to substantiate just such a claim. Therefore, your claim that there isn't any evidence is false.
Makes no mention of a mechanism? Are you high? Did you even read any of it? The evidence I provided mentioned multiple mechanisms, and provided evidence that those exact mechanisms can produce biological novelty. They've not only been tested; they've been verified from multiple lines of inquiry. There's no way you could have given those links more than the most cursory scan and come away thinking that. Anyone who thinks NDE doesn't propose a mechanism for evolution is utterly clueless about neodarwinian evolution. And given the utter lack of any mention of a mechanism from ID at all, your position smacks of hypocrisy. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" doesn't even rate as a mechanism; it doesn't rate as anything more than hand-waving.
Religion is more than going to church. Plenty of religions don't even have houses of worship. Positing a supernatural designer who can suspend natural law at will is a religious concept whether you want to admit it or not. No one is claiming ID is a religion. They're claiming it's an impermissible intrusion of religious thought into science.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 8, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
ericmurphy:
Demonstrating that a designer is unnecessary does not falsify ID.
Yes it would. Just what is it about Ocamm's Razor don't you understand?
What is about Dr. Behe's statement don't you understand?
So once it is shown that life can arise from non-living matter (life being the ultimate IC system) no one would be left in the ID camp.
ericmurphy:
To falsify ID it would be necessary that it is not possible even in principle for life not to have been designed. That's what "falsifying" a theory means.
Hopefully no one is relying on your word for that.
ericmurphy:
Makes no mention of a mechanism? Are you high?
Perhaps. I know Dr. Theobald's article doesn't mention a mechanism. Is there another article that shows any alleged transformation can be accounted for via some blindwatchmaker process? Present it again. Most likely you will just present something about a type of evolution that isn't even being debated and try to use it as evidence for something else. IOW you are hoping I am high so that I couldn't tell the difference.
ericmurphy:
Positing a supernatural designer who can suspend natural law at will is a religious concept whether you want to admit it or not.
ID doesn't do that. Only anti-IDists without a clue attempt to force ID to do that.
ericmurphy:
No one is claiming ID is a religion. They're claiming it's an impermissible intrusion of religious thought into science.
Then perhaps they should read what the court sez:
.As Justice Lewis Powell wrote in his concurrence to Edwards v. Aguillard, "(A) decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught "˜happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions'."
And about the mechanism- try reading the following:
ID and Mechanisms 1
ID and Mechanisms 2
And BTW- there isn't any difference between Miller's "God" and no "God" at all. Also are IDists religious because the evidence gives them cause to be? Most likely.
Comment by Joe G — October 8, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
October 8th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
Joe G:
Occam's razor has nothing to do with falsifying a theory. Nor does explanatory parsimony. Falsifying a theory is demonstrating that a central claim of the theory, e.g., that life was designed, cannot be true. You cannot prove that life wasn't designed, and showing that it need not have been designed is not the same thing as saying it couldn't have been designed.
I've said this before, and this will be the last time I say it: falsifying ID's claim that IC systems cannot have evolved is not the same thing as falsifying ID's claim that life was designed. Does that make any sense to you?
(By the way, does "my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems" mean something other than that Behe believes that no unintelligent process can produce IC systems?)
Miller dealt with this issue in his testimony. He said the same thing I'm saying. You can falsify claims that ID makes, e.g., IC, CSI, and the EF, without falsifying its ultimate claim that life was designed, which claim cannot be falsified.
Darwin mentioned a mechanism over a hundred years ago! I wouldn't have had to give you any cites at all to show that NDE has, indeed, proposed a mechanism. Theobald's article presents insurmountable evidence that those mechanisms, including others such as genetic drift that Darwin didn't even know about, can account for the diversity of life. The Musgrave article I gave you presents evidence that unintelligent processes can in fact account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Did you read the Musgrave article?
Well, Behe must be clueless then, because he has stated his personal belief that that's exactly what happened.
Halfway through the first paragraph of the first link you sent me there's already a problem. ID is not a mechanism. Stating that life was "designed" says nothing about how those designs ended up inside living organisms. A car was designed, but that doesn't tell you anything about how the car ends up on the showroom floor. How is the design implemented in genetic material?
ID is no more a mechanism than a series of shop drawings is a mechanism for getting a car out of the factory.
The author then goes on to contradict his first paragraph by basically admitting that ID does not propose any mechanisms (but somehow this isn't a problem for the theory). It's also a bit disingenuous for IDists to criticize NDE for not being able to give a detailed description of how RM&NS leads to biological novelty when ID has to content itself with saying an unknown designer, using unknown (and possibly unknowable) methods did the same thing. Contrary to the author's claims, this puts ID way behind NDE.
And in fact, it's simply not true that NDE has no detailed explanation for any biological novelty. Oftentimes genetics can show exactly what mutation, at what location, in what species, created what selective advantage. Investigation into various forms of hemoglobin have done exactly that, as has the investigation into nylon waste-metabolising bacteria.
Has NDE elucidated the exact evolutionary pathways for every biological structure out there? Far from it, and it will probably never happen. But the fact is, the mechanisms NDE proposes for generating biological novelty from undirected processes has been observed in the field and induced in the laboratory. Has it evolved a bacterium into a eukaryote? No. For reasons I've already given.
I also disagree with the contention that "thinking about mechanisms has been shaped by a non-teleological approach." I think the exact opposite is true. One of the hardest things evolutionary biologists have to un-learn is the idea that mutations and natural selection happen for a particular cause. The evidence (based on ridiculous amounts of suboptimal, and often completely bone-headed, biological structures) is that evolution is not goal-directed at all. In fact, once you get over the idea that evolution has a goal in mind, a lot of biology starts to make a whole lot more sense.
Further, I think the author is going out on thin ice to say that "Mind imposes a form on the world that is not traced to law and chance." It's entirely possible (even likely) that mind is in fact a result of law and chance.
Just an idea: can you think an impossible thought?
In his discussion, the author posits that life might have been "desposited" here by someone or something. That makes the problem harder, not easier, first because we've got the problem of infinite regress as we try to find a causeless cause (which almost inevitably becomes a religious question science cannot answer), and because we suddenly find ourselves trying to figure out a technology far beyond our understanding. Wouldn't it be more fruitful to assume life wasn't designed, take that assumption as far as possible (and we're nowhere near there yet), and if that assumption starts running out of steam in terms of explanatory power (and we're nowhere near there, either), then we can start thinking in terms of either designers who are immanent in the universe (and therefore are wanting an explanation into their origins) or assume supernatural agency, in which case the whole enterprise is in trouble.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 8, 2005 @ 9:28 pm
October 9th, 2005 at 7:09 am
ericmurphy:
Falsifying a theory is demonstrating that a central claim of the theory, e.g., that life was designed, cannot be true.
That is false. You would never get a real scientist to agree with you. Because by that standard the NDE is un-falsifiable.
Perhaps. I know Dr. Theobald's article doesn't mention a mechanism.
ericmurphy:
Darwin mentioned a mechanism over a hundred years ago!
Darwin was clueless about genetics.
ericmurphy:
I wouldn't have had to give you any cites at all to show that NDE has, indeed, proposed a mechanism.
I never said otherwise. However it should be noted that said mechanism has NEVER been demonstrated to do anything except slightly modify something that was already existing. IOW the NDE requires a level of specified complexity that requires explaining in the first place.
ericmurphy:
Theobald's article presents insurmountable evidence that those mechanisms, including others such as genetic drift that Darwin didn't even know about, can account for the diversity of life.
No it does not. That article does not mention a mechanism all it does is provide "evidence" for common descent.
ericmurphy:
The Musgrave article I gave you presents evidence that unintelligent processes can in fact account for the origin of life from non-living matter. Did you read the Musgrave article?
All he gave was wishful thinking. Did you read it?
ericmurphy:
Well, Behe must be clueless then, because he has stated his personal belief that that's exactly what happened.
Again what IDists say does not mean ID does the same. You do understand there is a difference between what ID is and what IDists personal beliefs are?
ericmurphy:
How is the design implemented in genetic material?
How many times do you have to be told that the ONLY way to determine an implementation process is by studying the design? How many times do you have to be told that the detection and understanding of the design does not require knowing the designer or the implementation process? That is what those articles by Mike Gene were about.
Comment by Joe G — October 9, 2005 @ 7:09 am
October 9th, 2005 at 7:53 am
Falsificationism:
Comment by Joe G — October 9, 2005 @ 7:53 am
October 9th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Real origins of life stuff (as opposed to the diatribe by Musgrave):
RNA World
Note to Eric- Ideas, no matter how conceivable to our minds, are not evidence for the idea. IOW I know just about all the ideas on how life arose from non-living matter via unintelligent, blind/ undorected processes. I also know that not one of those ideas has been demonstrated to work in the real world. And no, I do not say to stop trying. Only by continuing will the design inference be confirmed in the minds of those who doubt its validity.
Comment by Joe G — October 9, 2005 @ 8:39 am
October 9th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Joe and Eric,
This thread is for the discussion of the effect the ruling in Dover can have on academic freedom. Please continue your discussion here.
Comment by Krauze — October 9, 2005 @ 8:50 am
October 9th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Hi Eric,
"If, however, the designer that ID has in mind is a supernatural being, which can suspend physical law at whim (as Michael Behe apparently believes) than I think the nature and identity of the designer is pretty much by definition a religious question."
If the designer is supernatural, you think that religion can provide reliable knowledge about its nature and identity? I'm not sure what else "a religious question" would mean.
Also, if intelligent design provides no means to distinguish between a natural and a supernatural designer, is it religious?
"You might want to check out an essay I wrote a little while ago that tangentially is concerned with this issue."
Your essay starts with the claim, "Often proponents of intelligent design and/or creationism argue for the possibility of a "supernatural" agency being responsible for the evolution of living organisms." I don't argue for supernatural agency.
"I wouldn't want to hazard a guess as to whether a religion department would fund research into ID if ID were ruled to be a religious concept."
But you did. You were arguing that academic freedom got "redirected", flowing from natural science to philosophy and religion departments.
"If the Kitzmiller case rules ID out of public education classrooms, I guess we'll find out.
Indeed. As I said, "At that point, we can revisit Brayton's argument."
It's getting late on this side of the planet, so I'll reply to the rest of your comment later.
Comment by Krauze — October 9, 2005 @ 6:52 pm
October 10th, 2005 at 2:05 am
Krauze:
No, I'm actually pretty sure religion couldn't even begin to guess about its nature and identity.
I guess the real problem I have is attributing supernatural causes in the first place. My preference would be, as I've stated before, to assume natural causes except as a last resort. Since it's difficult to even hypothesize about supernatural causes (how can you exclude any hypothesis that involves a supernatural cause?), I think we're better off sticking with natural causes for as long as possible.
You don't, but a lot of ID proponents do, including Behe, and presumably Dembski, given his statements about his motivations.
Here's the issue I have with ID in science classrooms. If you assume that the designer is a supernatural agent, then science is ill-equipped to deal with explaining its actions, and therefore it's difficult to imagine how ID would be dealt with in a science classroom.
On the other hand, if you assume that the designer is a natural agent, constrained by natural law, you quickly get mired in infinite regress. I'm not sure how eleventh graders would deal with that problem.
Another issue: in general, any science taught at the undergraduate level (to say nothing of the secondary school level) is generally the current consensus (we don't teach loop quantum gravity in high school physics classes or undergraduate physics classes). ID is not consensus science (to put it mildly). I have no particular issue with problems with evolutionary biology being taught in high school science classes, for the same reasons I have no issues with teaching the problems general relativity has in dealing with events near the Planck time (assuming high school students can even follow the problem). I do have a problem with high school students being taught that ID is a better explanation for evolution than the New Synthesis, because a) it's not, and b) it's hardly the consensus view.
If people want to teach an ID class in a postgraduate setting, the same way they would teach, e.g., M-theory, that's fine. But I still think a class taught strictly on ID (i.e., without reference to purported shortcomings of evolutionary theory) would be a very short class.
Also, given the religious agenda that many, many ID proponents clearly have (e.g., Wells, Dembski, and possibly Behe), I'm profoundly suspicious of attempts to have ID inserted into science curricula. It's difficult for me to believe that there's not some other agenda at work (which shouldn't be construed to mean I think you share the same agenda).
Comment by ericmurphy — October 10, 2005 @ 2:05 am
October 10th, 2005 at 7:47 am
ericmurphy Says: October 10th, 2005 at 2:05 am
But, of course, ID doesn't do that. It attributes to intelligent causes. That's why it is called Intelligent Design.
No, neither Behe nor Dembski argues for supernatural agency as part of ID. They state that their personal belief as Christians leads them to the conclusion that supernatural agency (i.e. the Christian God) is the First Cause. Something Kenneth Miller, and many other Darwinists, also believe.
You seem to be focused on ultimate causes, and assume that others must be as well. I think that is a dilemma that science need not deal with. One can make neither assumption about ultimate causes (natural or supernatural), yet deal with what we can see in the world around us. Isn't that the scientific endeavor in a nutshell?
Will inquisitive eleventh graders ask about the nature of the designer? Sure. Much as they will ask how life got started to begin with. And there are a myriad of ways to deal with such questions.
What I find interesting about your approach, and one that I see from many Darwinists, is that you seem to come not from a "Darwinism as science" approach, but a "Darwinism as modern creation myth". That's why you seem to obsess upon theological questions when critiquing ID. It challenges your world-view.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — October 10, 2005 @ 7:47 am
October 10th, 2005 at 8:08 am
ericmurphy:
I guess the real problem I have is attributing supernatural causes in the first place. My preference would be, as I've stated before, to assume natural causes except as a last resort.
We already know that natural causes could not have given rise to the origin of nature.
ericmurphy:
Here's the issue I have with ID in science classrooms. If you assume that the designer is a supernatural agent, then science is ill-equipped to deal with explaining its actions, and therefore it's difficult to imagine how ID would be dealt with in a science classroom.
Just look for signs of design. Ya see ID is NOT about the designer. The design resides in and is part of this physical, observable world. THAT is what IDists are interested in- the design.
ericmurphy:
On the other hand, if you assume that the designer is a natural agent, constrained by natural law, you quickly get mired in infinite regress. I'm not sure how eleventh graders would deal with that problem.
It is not a problem- that is reality. What do teachers tell them about the origins of nature? Obviously that had to occur via some "non" or "super" natural process. There isn't any way around that.
ericmurphy:
I have no particular issue with problems with evolutionary biology being taught in high school science classes,
Of course not. However it should be noted that you accept non-scientific website articles as evidence for evolutionary biology.
Comment by Joe G — October 10, 2005 @ 8:08 am
October 10th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
RogerRabbit:
Clearly this isn't true for some of the major names in the ID pantheon. Jonathan Wells clearly has a religious agenda, and so does William Dembski. Behe has specifically stated that he believes the "intelligent agent" is God. Dembski has stated that he thinks God's glory is being robbed by "these naturalistic theories." If that isn't a religious agenda, I don't know what is.
If life on earth is not the result of design, than the ultimate causes are well within the purview of science. If life is the result of intelligent design that is not a supernatural agent, then the causes are still within the purview of science. It will just take much, much longer to get there. I think that's one of the reasons most scientists are probably hopeful that life can be explained by unintelligent undirected causes. Getting to the bottom of the whole situation will be a lot easier, not harder.
For me, neodarwinian evolution is attractive for exactly that reason. If we assume that a) life was designed, and b) the designer is a natural phenomenon of some sort, immanent in the universe, that probably means we're really far away from coming up with a satisfying explanation for how life arose. If it was placed here by some intelligent agent, explaining the existence, methods, etc. of that agent will be necessary for a full explanation of the existence of life. Wouldn't it? Would you be satisfied knowing nothing about the intelligent agent? I wouldn't be.
ID doesn't challenge my world view nearly as much as NDE challenges the world view of those who believe that man was created in god's image. I originally thought the universe was closed, and would eventually recollapse. Now it appears the universe will expand forever. At first, I was uncomfortable with the notion. But now I actually like that idea better. So I don't think I'm resistant to the idea of an intelligent designer for quite the reasons you think I am. I'm resistant to the idea because it makes the whole enterprise of exploring the evolution of life orders of magnitude harder.
Joe G:
We know no such thing. Or, we know that in the same way we "knew" that man would never fly.
Well, that might be good enough for the ID community, but I know it isn't good enough for me, and I don't think it would be good enough for the scientific community either. If there's a designer out there, science is going to want to know what or who the designer is, and how it implemented its designs. To just say, well, we know this thing was designed, but we don't know how, why, or by whom, isn't going to be very satisfying of an answer.
I disagree completely that the origins of nature have to be supernatural. We're a long, long way from knowing that, and don't you think taking that attitude is just a little, well, defeatist?
Are you saying e.g., talk origins or talk reason are "non-scientific" websites? Why, because they're not "peer reviewed" Are you aware of any peer-reviewed online scientific journals? Because I can tell you right now, neither the DI website nor uncommondescent are going to fit any scientists's definition of a "scientific" website. You've certainly provided links to articles posted on the web, which presumably you believe, that are in no way peer-reviewed, and are often by people who have never published a paper in any peer-reviewed scientific journal anywhere.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 10, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
October 10th, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Krause:
Oops. I can see we've wandered completely off the topic again. But I'm just responding to previous posts!
Anyway, looking forward to your further responses…
Comment by ericmurphy — October 10, 2005 @ 11:55 pm
October 11th, 2005 at 12:48 am
We already know that natural causes could not have given rise to the origin of nature.
ericmurphy:
We know no such thing.
Yes we do. Ya see Eric, natural processes only exist in nature. That is a fact not even you can get around.
Just look for signs of design. Ya see ID is NOT about the designer. The design resides in and is part of this physical, observable world. THAT is what IDists are interested in- the design.
ericmurphy:
Well, that might be good enough for the ID community, but I know it isn't good enough for me, and I don't think it would be good enough for the scientific community either.
What "scientific community" And who cares what is "good enough" for you?
Why is it good enough for the NDE to explain life's diversity without explaining life's origins? Your double-standards are sickening.
ericmurphy:
If there's a designer out there, science is going to want to know what or who the designer is, and how it implemented its designs.
Science wouldn't care. Scientists should have an interest and they can set about finding the answers to those questions. However ID is not and never has been about answering those questions anymore than the NDE was formulated to anser life's origins.
ericmurphy:
To just say, well, we know this thing was designed, but we don't know how, why, or by whom, isn't going to be very satisfying of an answer.
No one said it was supposed to be. Saying random mutations culled by natural selection doesn't even get the cigarette lit.
ericmurphy:
Are you saying e.g., talk origins or talk reason are "non-scientific" websites?
Yes. Because they are non-objective and spew ignorance of the opposition that is repulsive to those who understand the reality of the debate.
Comment by Joe G — October 11, 2005 @ 12:48 am
October 11th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Okay, let's see. Natural processes only exist in nature. And this proves that natural processes must have supernatural causes? I think you've lost me here.
So you'd be satisfied with knowing that life was designed, without knowing anything about the nature, motivations, methods, identity of the designer. Hmm.
I'm sorry you find my views sickening. Anyway…NDE does not attempt to explain the origins of life. Abiogenesis does. Two different theories. General Relativity doesn't attempt to explain quantum phenomena. Is this a reason to criticize General Relativity?
In the meantime, ID is not concerned with the nature or identity of the designer, nor with its methods or motivations, nor does it have any explanation whatsoever for the origin of life, other than to essentially say it was "poofed" into existence. Is there some other theory that is interested in those questions?
Well, which is it? Science shouldn't care, but should be interested and try to find the answers? It can't be both.
So a statement that life was designed, without any kind of coherent mechanism for detecting such design, without any investigation whatsoever into the nature, identity, means, methods, or motivations of said designer is somehow a fuller description of the evolution of life than a theory that at least has some sort of mechanisms for how life got to be the way it is, which mechanisms have been observed in the field and in the lab, that has enormous explicative power, that has been confirmed over and over again in its generalities (if not in its specifics), that has made concrete predictions that have subsequently been confirmed, that matches observations nearly perfectly, that is uncontradicted by any credible evidence? Okay, if you say so.
So two sites that are populated largely by actual scientists, who work for actual research institutions, doing actual science, publishing actual scientific results in actual peer-reviewed scientific journals, are "non-objective" and "spew ignorance of the opposition," and are therefore non-scientific.
Okay, sure.
But dude, you need to do something about your temper.
Also, this thread is going completely off the rails again. I thought this thread was supposed to be about the effect of an adverse ruling in Kitzmiller on academic freedom…
Comment by ericmurphy — October 11, 2005 @ 2:16 am
October 11th, 2005 at 8:28 am
ericmurphy:
Okay, let's see. Natural processes only exist in nature. And this proves that natural processes must have supernatural causes? I think you've lost me here.
You lost yourself. I originally stated that nature's origins required some "non" or "super" natural processes.
ericmurphy:
So you'd be satisfied with knowing that life was designed, without knowing anything about the nature, motivations, methods, identity of the designer.
I never said nor implied anything of the kind. However I do realize what ID is about, ie why it was formulated. Hint- it was not formulated to answer the who, how, when and why.
ericmurphy:
NDE does not attempt to explain the origins of life.
And ID does not attempt to answer the who, why, when or how. Those questions are for another "theory".
ericmurphy:
In the meantime, ID is not concerned with the nature or identity of the designer, nor with its methods or motivations, nor does it have any explanation whatsoever for the origin of life, other than to essentially say it was "poofed" into existence.
ID does not say that life "poofed" into existence.
Science wouldn't care. Scientists should have an interest and they can set about finding the answers to those questions.
ericmurphy:
Well, which is it? Science shouldn't care, but should be interested and try to find the answers? It can't be both.
Please learn how to read. I said science wouldn't care, not shouldn't. And I said scientists (which is very different than science) should have an interest. I have stated it is that interest that would drive them to find an answer.
ericmurphy:
So a statement that life was designed, without any kind of coherent mechanism for detecting such design,
Science has and uses methodology for detecting design. ID has laid down specific criteria for doing so. However when asked what criteria is used to support your position you admit there isn't any.
The NDE does not explain anything. There isn't any evidence that any mutation-selection process can lead to the range of morphological and phenotypic change required. That is a fact and why there are biologists and geneticists who have switched to being IDists or Creationists.
ericmurphy:
Also, this thread is going completely off the rails again. I thought this thread was supposed to be about the effect of an adverse ruling in Kitzmiller on academic freedom"¦
And you along with the websites you link to are main reasons why ID needs to be taught/ allowed in science classrooms. However you can't afford that as it will expose the lies and misrepresentations that have been spewed by anti-IDists.
Comment by Joe G — October 11, 2005 @ 8:28 am
October 11th, 2005 at 10:47 am
OK back to "the Brief":
It is important to note that what is at issue is allowing/ disallowing a design inference when conducting scientific research. To that end "the Brief" is very correct in stating no one should limit scientists when it comes to making an educated inference based on scientific research. What science does, with the aid of scientists, is to either confirm or refute that inference based on further research.
IOW if some scientists have a better explanation for the universe, especially in light of the data/ evidence presented in The Privileged Planet they shoulkd present it. If any scientist has any data that would refute the inference of The Privileged Planet they should present it. By attacking the authors or some alleged purpose of the inference just tells people there isn't any refuting evidence and that is why the tactics anti-IDists use do not address the data.
Comment by Joe G — October 11, 2005 @ 10:47 am
October 11th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Joe G:
I agree entirely that if scientists want to pursue an ID-related research program, they should be free to do so. In the same vein, if scientists want to pursue research into cold fusion, they should be free to do that as well.
However, with respect to teaching ID in the public school classroom: aside from the religious agenda that is clearly possessed by most (but not all) ID supporters, there's also the issue I mentioned earlier. In general, undergraduate and secondary school science classes have traditionally taught consensus science. I know it pains you to hear this, but neodarwinian evolution is entirely uncontroversial within the scientific community, regardless of what kind of controversy rages outside of that community. Obviously, ID is far from consensus science regardless of its merits.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 11, 2005 @ 11:46 am
October 11th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
Hi Eric,
Krauze: "If the designer is supernatural, you think that religion can provide reliable knowledge about its nature and identity? I'm not sure what else "a religious question" would mean"
Eric: "No, I'm actually pretty sure religion couldn't even begin to guess about its nature and identity."
Then what do you mean by saying that the nature and identity of a supernatural designer is "a religious question"
"I guess the real problem I have is attributing supernatural causes in the first place."
The real problem I have is that you seem to be arguing with an ID proponent inside your head, attributing all of his opinions to me. I tell you that I don't want to teach ID in school, and you tell me what problems you have with teaching ID in school. I tell you that I don't claim that the designer is supernatural, and you tell me which problems you have with a supernatural designer. If you want to discuss these things with me, discuss them with me.
Krauze: "I don't argue for supernatural agency."
Eric: "You don't, but a lot of ID proponents do, including Behe, and presumably Dembski, given his statements about his motivations."
Tough luck. You aren't talking with Behe and Dembski, you're talking with me.
Comment by Krauze — October 11, 2005 @ 2:24 pm
October 11th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Hi Eric,
"Oops. I can see we've wandered completely off the topic again. But I'm just responding to previous posts!"
That's not how it looks from where I'm sitting, as you seem to be one of the reasons why the thread keeps verging off track. Even though the initial post had nothing to do with ID in schools or supernatural agency, you've repeatedly tried to insert those topics in the discussion. You aren't the sole reason, but it would help if you started trying to understand the position of the person you're discussing with, rather than forcing your own issues through.
Comment by Krauze — October 11, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
October 11th, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Krauze:
That being your impression, I will no longer respond to any statements that are not directly related to the subject of this thread, which as far as I can tell is whether ID researchers should or should not be allowed to pursue their researches in institutions of higher learning (i.e., not in public secondary schools).
My personal opinion is that researchers should indeed be allowed to pursure such researches. However, teaching professors should be required to comply with the requirements their institution has set forth for the subject matter of the class. In other words, a professor teaching a class in evolutionary biology should be required to teach the subject matter appropriate to that class, in the same way that it would be inappropriate for, e.g., a professor teaching a class on the Reformation would be constrained from teaching that Eastern religions such as taoism are superior to their Western counterparts.
Does that seem fair enough?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 11, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
October 11th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
The saddest part about "the Brief" is that it had to be written. Reality forced it to be done.
How science class, especially historical sciences, should be taught is by presenting the evidence as well as the options to that evidence's existence. Then discuss and research until it is hashed out- that is as well as can be at that level of education.
For example present the video The Privileged Planet, discuss the data presented as well as conduct the research necessary to validate its claims. The same can be done on the biological side using the video Unlocking the Mysteries of Life. View, discuss, research, discuss, infer, test inference, etc.
As an aside- if Eric had read "the Brief" he would have noticed it discussed any alleged religious agenda of IDists and its irrelevance to the issue.
"Consensus" science is good only when the "consensus" is due to real viable data. The NDE does not enjoy that.
Comment by Joe G — October 11, 2005 @ 7:27 pm
October 11th, 2005 at 8:11 pm
The personal religious beliefs of IDists is only irrelevant if there really is no religious agenda in the attempt to introduce ID into high school science curricula. If there in fact is such an agenda (and the evidence that such an agenda exists is substantial), then that agenda becomes very relevant.
The data supporting NDE is every bit as reliable, and plentiful, as the data supporting any other similarly general theory, such as quantum theory, relativity theory, and plate tectonics. We can go around and around a few more times on the subject, but the evidence supporting NDE is more than sufficient to support the teaching of evolution in high school classrooms.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 11, 2005 @ 8:11 pm
October 12th, 2005 at 8:33 am
ericmurphy:
The personal religious beliefs of IDists is only irrelevant if there really is no religious agenda in the attempt to introduce ID into high school science curricula.
Nope it is irrelevant period.
ericmurphy:
If there in fact is such an agenda (and the evidence that such an agenda exists is substantial), then that agenda becomes very relevant.
IF that is so then we must consider the religious and/ or anti-religious agenda of those pushing the NDE. That agenda should therefore doom any "theory".
ericmurphy:
The data supporting NDE is every bit as reliable, and plentiful, as the data supporting any other similarly general theory, such as quantum theory, relativity theory, and plate tectonics.
That is false. We don't even know what makes a species what it is. Therefore it is very premature to say the NDE is reliable and has supporting data.
Comment by Joe G — October 12, 2005 @ 8:33 am
October 12th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Joe G:
So it's irrelevant even if there is a religious agenda behind getting ID taught in high schools. Right.
Your constant claims that there is no evidence supporting NDE, aside from being tiresome, are utterly ridiculous. For one who claims he goes where the evidence leads, you have a weird idea of what is and what isn't "evidence." Especially when you haven't presented any evidence at all that life was designed.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 12, 2005 @ 11:48 am
October 12th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
Eric,
The merits of ID - whether or not a design inference can be reasonably made - stands on its own, regardless of agenda. Some of the proponents do have an agenda in that they recognize the metaphysical implications upon the psyche are unavoidable. As things stand, the proponents of the standard NDE have been given full reign for their own agenda. The agenda is somewhat nihilistic. I do not know if this philosophy was taught when I was young, as I never went to high school. But I have recently become aware, from my own kids and from participating on discussion forums with young people, that this philosophy is openly taught, widespread, and most definitely has a metaphysical affect upon the psyche.
They are going to pull back somewhat now, under leadership from Eugenie Scott, because they have begun to realize that they were teaching atheism. Or at least that they've been caught.
We really are in a bit of a dilemma. On one hand, ID does stand on its own because a design inference can be made independently as I said above, but in the end there is only one question: Is there God?
This is the whole crux of it. One can discuss frontloading in the big bang but in the end if there is a God our existence is no accident. If there is a God all the rest is details. Every single bit of NDE as the mechanisms might be true but if there is a God then that God is the source of existence itself. That is why I say that Ken Miller is an ID ist, whether he likes it or not.
Why are you not worried about the obvious agenda of someone like Dawkins? Teaching young people, whose idealism is blooming strong, that life and human beings have no purpose and are accidental, that there is no such thing as good and that ultimately nothing really matters does have a depressing affect.
Dawkins says a religious upbringing is a form of child abuse. I have some sympathy for his position because there has been so much idiocy in religion. But now I am considering whether an atheistic upbringing is a form of neglect as well. Why? Because if the research into the right temporal lobe that I've read a little about is right, and based on what I know about the neural pathways in the brain being either developed and reinforced or not during several windows of opportunity during childhood and adolescence, then that part of the brain might be in a sense atrophied and poorly functioning due to lack of stimulus. It seems there is an area in the brain that is occupied with those perceptions we call spiritual.
Comment by onething — October 12, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
October 12th, 2005 at 3:05 pm
onething:
I agree that ID's strengths and weaknesses as a theory of evolution have nothing to do with the beliefs of its supporters. However, whether it should be taught in public schools alongside of or in the stead of evolutionary biology has everything to do with the motivations of those wanting it in the schools.
And it does seem somewhat revealing to me that, for a theory that supposedly has nothing to do with religion, the subject of religion keeps cropping up in discussions not just by ID's detractors, but also its supporters. But even looking at it from a purely ethical, rather than religious or scientific, point of view, I'm not sure ID has anything to offer that NDE does not.
First, as even you yourself concede, evolutionary biology does not exclude the existence of