The Woodstock of Evolution
by GutsIt's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate "other" new phenomena. So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago, seems about to be reborn as the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis".
July 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
It would be informative to list some of the personalities in the original Woodstock and compare them against the personalities in the new woodstock…..
I'd say Massimo Pigliucci is a good counter part to Jimmy Hendrix…:mrgreen:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 7, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Oh I see. If you put in some dots right before mrgreen, he doesn't show
Comment by Guts — July 7, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Here's what one of the Altenberg 16 has to say about the upcoming conference and the creationists attempts to make something out of it:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/07/is-there-fundamental-scientific.html
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 8, 2008 @ 11:50 am
July 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
This all looks pretty interesting.
Comment by chunkdz — July 8, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I still don't get it.
I posted something like this on the AtBC site.
Why is it when Darwin Evolution under goes changes, it is refining itself. But when the search for evidence for God's word gets more scientific, it still "ain't science?".
When Newton's Theory was shown to be wrong on several different places, they adopted Relativity. Now there's Quantum Mechanics and still that doesn't answer things.
I've been trying to answer their question about Information Theory. Now I believe they reject that it is a Theory at all. Still it seems to me that our first steps into showing God's Hand in our creation can be much like Newton's first Theory of motion.
Who knows what we'll find if ID scientists get 200 years of funding and a chance to bring ID to the fore-front like Darwinian believers have.
Comment by lcd — July 8, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Science changes because it gains knowledge and understanding. Religion has had largely the same dogma for 2000 years, nothing new is learned, no knowledge is gained. Science tries to find the truth whatever that truth may be; religion already knows the truth cause god wrote it in a book and is simply looking for a way to convince people of what they already know. How could these two forces be more different?
ID has been the predominate thought form since at lease the dawn of human writing and has yet to generate a single objective fact, I'm not sure what you expect another 200 years will accomplish. I love how some ID supporters assume Darwinism is only accepted because of political pressure from some fanatical group of supporters. The idea that maybe it was successful due to its own merits never seems to enter their minds as a possibility. Perhaps because its only fanatical followers and political pressure that results in one being Christian instead of Muslim or Catholic instead of Protestant they just assume everything works that way. As a skeptic I fully endorse the free competition of ideas, that is what allowed evolution to replace creationism in the first place. Still I really hope some ID supporters do start doing actual research and making actual hypothesis, free competition of ideas is no threat to truth.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 8, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
"Well, it’s very unfortunate that you bought into this. There are very few people in evolutionary biology who take Pigliucci seriously, and Fodor, Pivar, et al. are literally unknowns, providing no evidence that they’ve read a single bit of the mainstream evolutionary biology literature. Of the pictures of the Altenberg group, I’m sure that most are unaware of your posting, as I know that several of them are mainstream evolutionary biologists, with no axe to grind with the framework in which most of us are working. We are seeing the field of evolutionary biology being increasingly trivialized and threatened by quacks, and although these folks are by no means creationists, they are every bit as dangerous. All areas of inquiry have limitations, but there is no justification for criticizing a field until one has put in the effort to understand it." – Mike Lynch, Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Biology, Indiana University
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00057.htm
I have little confidence in a “new synthesis” emerging from this motley crew of B-list science celebrities, and their mishmash of old ideas (“self-organization,” “emergence,” “edge of chaos,” and all that), and current professional rivalries and personal animosities. These are all “old school” biologists and philosophers.
If the TTers allow, I have a question for evolutionists: Who would you invite to your conference? And why?
There's a few names on the list of invitations I would include: Lynch, Lewontin, Wagner, e.g.
(I recognize that their are few if any evolutionists who attend to this board who even think a "new synthesis" is required.)
I can’t think of any (and know the names of only a few) “ID-scientists) I would invite…
Comment by Rock — July 8, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Todd B,
I'm sure you could find a way to describe them as being so, if you really had to.
Really, 'religion has had largely the same dogma'? Even within a particular sect, you'll find a long lineage of questioning, debating, and yes, even exploring not just other ideas, but nature itself. Science as we know it is largely a product of western religious pursuits after all.
Depends on which aspect of Darwinism. Many ID proponents are entirely at home with everything from common descent to evolution to elsewise. It's the more fringe social/political/quasi-religious takes on "Darwinism" that introduces the more zealous element.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Rock wrote:
I thought most TT'ers were evolutionists…
Comment by chunkdz — July 8, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Rock,
I guess I'm an evolutionist, so…
Probably "any very competent, civil philosopher of science who can explain the line between scientific results and philosophical claims". And a historian who can discuss (IOW, "remind them of") Lysenkoism, what effects it had, where it came from, and what lessons could be learned from the event.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Pigliucci is brilliant and really funny.
Comment by Guts — July 8, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Off the top of my head (or from the depths of my dark soul LOL) I thought to include:
Stanislas Leibler, Ph.D.
http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/abstract.php?id=88
Andreas Wagner
http://www.bioc.unizh.ch/wagner/
John Doyle (Not even a biologist!)
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~doyle/home.htm
Erik van Nimwegen
http://www.biozentrum.unibas.ch/~nimwegen/
Peter Schuster
http://www.tbi.univie.ac.at/~pks/
James Shapiro
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/
William Bialek
http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html
Randall Beer
http://mypage.iu.edu/~rdbeer/
Comment by Rock — July 8, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Rock writes
"
I'd definitely invite Lynch– he has excellent insight into the role neutral process play. He also has that rare combination of skills: molecular biology and population genetics.
Lewontin, as well. A brilliant contrarian.
I wouldn't invite Eldredge, but I would invite paleontologists like Neil Shurbin, who are uncovering more and more crucial transitionals.
I'd invite Mike Majerus and/or Bruce Grant for melanism insights, and Peter and Rosemary Grant for their beautifully thorough work on Daphne Major, and all of them just to remind everyone how difficult it is to extract evolutionary data in the wild.
Jim Mallett gets a vote for his speciation expertise, and if we can't get him maybe Jerry Coyne and Allan Orr can fill in.
And I'd also invite me, just to make coffee of course, but to also get to listen to all of them together.
To name just a few.
Comment by KC — July 8, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Rock, citing the disgruntled professor:
Thanks for that giggle, Rock. There are some paranoiacs out there, never ceases to amaze me. The study of life – the seeking of knowledge about who and what we are and where we came from – will always harbor 'camps' on two (at least) sides of the metaphysical implications. This has been true for nearly a hundred years in physics, biology is just the red-headed step-brother bringing up the rear.
I know that science can handle the metaphysical divide because I've seen it up close and personal at work. Just do the work, reserve the metaphysics for metaphysical investigations. If there are hard core Creationists doing good biological science, then they're not a 'threat' to biological science. The same thing is true of hard core Evangelical Atheists doing science. Metaphysics is outside of science's well-drawn parameters, its job description.
It's natural for us – scientists as well as laymen – to want to believe humanity's most powerful intellectual tool in this modern world (Science) seeks big-t Truth. But it doesn't, never intended to hit that target. It's the systematic quantification of physical nature for our practical purposes of control. Which is very much equal to power, and power is the name of the human game.
My conference would host some actually pertinent philosophers of science. Remind everyone of what the delimited parameters are, and what they do not embrace.
Comment by Joy — July 8, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Dont't the opinions of us creationist count.
I'd invite:
Rock (because he's so cool, and I love him)
Richard Dawkins (just to insult him)
Michael Lynch (one of population genetic's best minds)
James Shapiro (the only one with actual lab experience with evolutionary mechanisms of self-evolution)
Masotoshi New (NAS member who hates natural selection)
Allan Force (whom Lynch speaks reverently of)
William Provine
David Raup (who attended the ID Pajaro Dunes Conference with Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Meyers, Nelson, Johnson, etc.)
James Crow (the last of the old school before he keels over)
Richard Lewontin
Richard Sternberg (c'mon the guy has 2 PhDs, and he teamed up with James Shapiro on some good work)
Guiseppe Sermonti (geneticist who headed up Revista di Biologia)
John Sanford (the one creationists who taught at Cornell, who became filthy rich doing genetic engineering. He's an applied scientist)…..
Eric Davidson (who thinks neo-Darwinism is dead)
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 8, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Oh durn, I had no idea that Paul Nelson already blogged on this.
Comment by Guts — July 8, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Joy:
That's right, you're a nuclear physicist, aren't you?
Comment by Raevmo — July 9, 2008 @ 2:55 am
July 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Raevmo:
Health physicist, nuclear research and industrial applications. As was my brother [HP Site Coordinator, Hatch] and my husband [Senior Plant Chemist/Surveillance Tech] and all my friends. Then I became a graphic artist, journalist and publisher. Then a Secret Agent, technical investigator and fairly able bullet-dodger. Occasional bullwhip target on-stage in a Traveling Medicine Show, played keyboards for the Honky Dreads on tour, costume designer, puppetmaker and puppeteer, scriptwriter, manager and booking agent for Clowns at Large, back to journalism, then planted a garden and took up writing. Raised too many kids.
I've done a lot of things. I've never threatened to kill anybody in their sleep, though. That would be your area of expertise.
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 10:22 am
July 9th, 2008 at 11:13 am
I love you too, Salvador T. Cordova, you’re a pip. And thanks for reminding me, I would invite Eric Davidson too.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~davidson/
But I thought inviting creationists to a conference on recasting evolutionary theory would be a bit like inviting the Teamsters to a gynecologists’ convention.
And H. Allen Orr too, KC, even though he’s a bit “Old School.” Just so I could tell him what is the value of the exponent of traits expected to be fixed during adaptive evolution (within a small interval).
http://www.rochester.edu/College/BIO/professors/orr.html
Michael Savageau
http://www.bme.ucdavis.edu/profiles/savageau.html
Uri Alon
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/
And I recall a discussion here recently about Charles Babbage, which reminded me of an excellent essay about Babbage written by Seth Bullock. So that my own field is represented, I would invite Bullock (and also just to see Orr’s face turn a little red).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Seth_Bullock.gif/200px-Seth_Bullock.gif
No not that Seth Bullock. This Seth Bullock
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/sgb
And I’d invite KC too. His posts @ARN are its only redeeming feature anymore. He can make the coffee and I’ll serve the crullers.
Hey, what the hell, you’re all invited! What would a conference be w/o hecklers? (Just remember to bring cash for bail. It’s not included in the grant.)
But I couldn’t think of any philosophers to invite. Or why I would invite a philosopher.
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 11:13 am
July 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I love you too, Salvador T. Cordova, you’re a pip. And thanks for reminding me, I would invite Eric Davidson too.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~davidson/
But I thought inviting creationists to a conference on recasting evolutionary theory would be a bit like inviting the Teamsters to a gynecologists’ convention.
And H. Allen Orr too, KC, even though he’s a bit “Old School.”
Just so I could tell him what is the value of the exponent of traits expected to be fixed during adaptive evolution (within a small interval).
http://www.rochester.edu/College/BIO/professors/orr.html
Michael Savageau
http://www.bme.ucdavis.edu/profiles/savageau.html
Uri Alon
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/
And I recall a discussion here recently about Charles Babbage, which reminded me of an excellent essay about Babbage written by Seth Bullock. So that my own field is represented, I would invite Bullock (and also just to see Orr’s face turn a little red).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Seth_Bullock.gif/200px-Seth_Bullock.gif
No not that Seth Bullock. This Seth Bullock
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/people/sgb
And I’d invite KC too. His posts @ARN are its only redeeming feature anymore. He can make the coffee and I’ll serve the crullers.
Hey, what the hell, you’re all invited! What would a conference be w/o hecklers? (Just remember to bring cash for bail. It’s not included in the grant.)
But I couldn’t think of any philosophers to invite. Or why I would invite a philosopher.
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 11:16 am
July 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Here's my list for the Ultimate Evolution Conference:
Ben Stein
Carrot Top
The Allman Brothers
Iron Chef Morimoto
Gallagher
Condoleeza Rice
Ben & Jerry
Billy Joel
Bill Gates
and the ghost of Richard Feynman
We wouldn't learn much about epigenetics or heat shock proteins, but we'd have a helluva good time!
Comment by chunkdz — July 9, 2008 @ 11:35 am
July 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
chunk:
He was a pretty good juggler, you know. I could teach him to eat fire, and do some dumb magic tricks. Quite the entertainment lineup! §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
OTers @ARN will recall that I do Elvis impersonations and other impersonations that are not PC, but will make you vomit with glee! (E.g., "Quadriplegic Calisthenics." An oldie but a goodie.)
BYOB
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
LOL! You're hired, Rock-o-My-Heart! And don't worry about the philosophers. I'd just invite Cartwright and Chalmers (who can do his dance in the midst of the Ladies' Fire Eating Union circle doing their 'wave' of double tongue-transfers).
We're going to have a GREAT conference!
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Ok, Joy and Rock, you're both on the dais.
Joy, you're seated next to Feynman, and Rock, you'll have to sit next to Gallagher. Wear a raincoat.
Comment by chunkdz — July 9, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Anyone want to suggest a venue? Altenburg, Austria sounds a bit stuffy. How ‘bout the Bangkok Hard Rock Café?
You can always find me there.
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
And I'd prefer to be seated on the dais next to the ghost of Keith Moon.
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Who’s in charge of this asylum? Either tell the Webmaster to get his head out of his ass or hand him a flashlight.
Comment by Rock — July 9, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
chunkdz:
Presuming his watermelon supplier is having better luck with global warming droughts than I am, my watermelons are seriously stunted this year. Besides, I have a better fill-in idea. Mentalist and magician Jonathan Pritchard, whom we took under wing back when he was in 8th grade in an after-school program we ran, and is now married to the most beautiful assistant you can't imagine, and lives well in Austin. Yes, it's an act. He's really, really good at it. Not bad looking either, come to think of how people get famous. Oh, and his Dad's a preacher friend of ours…
Just think about how Joe-nathan could set the tone!
Rock:
Aw, man! We could'a had it in Bangkok, but my sister and her hubby have officially retired, will be here later this month. Oh, well. I know a cool spot on the beach in Costa Rica, with a little chickie-bar and some thatched huts…
Can I bring the ghost of Brian Jones? Billie P. sez he's available cheap…
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Rock:
Yeah, "Edit" is weirdly non-functional. That's Billy P., 'Billie' being the girl-version, as in Holliday.
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I'd invite Futuyma and have him sit on a carapace.
Comment by Guts — July 9, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Guts:
Can we target him with spit-balls while he's up there?
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
No use , he'll just use another carapace to block them.
Comment by Guts — July 9, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Would you settle for Dweezil Zappa?
Comment by chunkdz — July 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Oh, and if it's going to be an instant-replay of Woodstock, we can't forget to include Derek (Trucks) and his lovely wife Susan Tedeschi (makes a mean peach cobbler, I'm here to tell you…). Here's a picture of them hiking ahead of us through their property for my sister's memorial service, down at the dock. My sister Shannon bought him his first real electric guitar when he was 11, now he tours with Allman Brothers, Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan…
Susan sounds a lot like my sister did. She sang backup for Allman Bros. and Skynyrd [Free Bird! The Honky Dreads had a great reggae version for when it was inevitably shouted by the crowd... also had a great reggae version of "You Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me Lucille" and yes. I do play a mean banjo].
Anyhoo, those Trucks'es (including his leetle brothers) are probably available if we can afford a million up front and a year's head start. Who's donating? Do we have to get a grant?
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
From the link:
The self organization of life is not really analogous to self-ordered systems. Organization includes order, but is much, much more. It involves signaling, error checking, etc. Abel & Trevors have a great review of the differences in the 2006 Physics of Life Reviews titled Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models.
Comment by todd — July 9, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
I also found this bit interesting – as I read the first sentence I thought Pivar was referring to Ms. Scott's evangelical Naturalism!
Comment by todd — July 9, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Joy,
Talk about return on investment…!
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I forgot to invite Robert Trivers… not so much for his sociobiological work, but what has been taking up his time for the last 15 years: the biology of selfish genetic elements.
Comment by KC — July 10, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
July 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
chunkdz:
That's them Truck's and Busey's on the dock. Weird, eh? Which one am I?
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
July 12th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Derek's a phenomenal player. I do wish he'd smile or emote a little more when he plays – so focused and intense…but I love his solos. Duane would be proud..
Sorry, I don't recognize you without a big red ball on your nose!
Comment by chunkdz — July 12, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
July 12th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
chunkdz:
Awwwww….. Don't you recognize the Cash side of the family? As in John, of course, not any Carters I know of. Earned it honestly….
Yeah. Derek's got a great recording studio in his back yard, I still need to come up with some Amish Hex sign flags for his flagstaff. I promised…
Comment by Joy — July 12, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
July 16th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Now and then, I have been trying to figure out what is happening at Birkenstock of Evolution here:
Essentially, old school or new school, the Darwinists first need to decide what exactly Darwinism is. Is it simply a theory about whether species originate via survival of the fittest? That's what Darwin (and Wallace) proposed. Or is it also Lee Smolin's cosmic Darwinism, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution beloved of Psychology Today, and gangs of deceitful memes spreading religion as a virus of the mind?
If it is the first (a theory of the origin of species), it may well be true in some cases. But the evidence for Darwinism as a large, general cause of the origin of species has never been very good. When challenged, Darwinists typically point to trivial or questionable examples, then demand loyalty to their bigger idea as proof of support for "science" generally.
Then, of course, in marches a kazoo band harping on cosmic Darwinism, the Big Bazooms theory, and the gangs of deceitful religion memes (or viruses).
The fact that Darwinists have been able to get away with this nonsense for so long is principally due to the popularity at universities of the bigger idea that Darwinism supposedly underwrites – materialist atheism. Darwinism is the creation story of materialist atheism, if not of any particular species in nature. Most of the "skeptic rants' you hear in Darwinism's defence are recitations of the creed.
In short, I think Darwinism would be a viable idea in science if Darwinists could bring themselves to fire the kazoo band, but I bet they can't. We'll see.
Comment by Denyse — July 16, 2008 @ 9:47 am
July 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Denyse,
Why do they need to decide such a thing? Do String Theorists and Quantum Loop Theorists have to sit down and define what quantum gravity is before they forge ahead? Scientists move along different paths, models, theories, etc. We rarely achieve uniformity, especially a uniformity of approach.
The only sacrosanct rule is that you must make contact with experiment, something ID has never done, is not doing, and is not likely to achieve if it continues to tolerate leadership more interested in crying Expelled! and writing popularizations than in doing science.
Scientists simply do not "need" to do what you claim they need to do.
Comment by David Heddle — July 16, 2008 @ 11:31 am
July 17th, 2008 at 3:15 am
To add to what Heddle said, you can look back over the history of science in the 20th century and find lots of ideas that were ridiculed at first but which earned a place at the table. And that involved doing hard work to overcome the scientific community's resistance, work which the ID movement is not even pretending to do with the demise of PCID.
Comment by steve — July 17, 2008 @ 3:15 am
July 17th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Having amateurs blog silly Information Theory word salads, write pop sci books, and lobby school boards, hasn't gotten the ID movement anywhere in 18 years, and it's not going to get them anywhere in another 18.
Comment by steve — July 17, 2008 @ 3:16 am
July 17th, 2008 at 4:00 am
steve:
Having critics make silly comments about Information Theory and the origin of information rich nucleic acids demonstrates their attachment to their own movement. Conventional theories have gotten nowhere on this issue after decades of effort. They will continue the wheel spinning as long as the assumption holds sway that unspecified chemical reactions generated genomes.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 4:00 am
July 17th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Take a few quadrillion random sequences and some will have catalytic functions, including functions associated with autocatalysis.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2008 @ 7:28 am
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Bradford:
Yes, research will continue because saying the designer dunnit has explained precisely diddly-squat after millennia of effort.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2008 @ 8:21 am
July 17th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Raevmo:
So poof! A non-designed abiogenesis dunnit.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 10:37 am
July 17th, 2008 at 11:16 am
So simple.
Comment by chunkdz — July 17, 2008 @ 11:16 am
July 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Joy,
You know, out here in Hollyweird, we've got a few show business Busey's of our own. But they couldn't be related could they?
Comment by chunkdz — July 17, 2008 @ 11:21 am
July 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Joy's either the woman grabbing that guy's ass or the woman on the end holding the beer. (You are a woman, aren't you? I would be sorely disillusioned and disappointed if you weren't.)
Comment by Rock — July 17, 2008 @ 11:29 am
July 17th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Btw
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0807/S00053.htm
HT: Denyse O'Leary
Comment by Rock — July 17, 2008 @ 11:44 am
July 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
chunk:
Um… Can't you tell by sheer size of teeth?
Rock, that woman pinching his butt is my neice the rocket scientist (it was her Mom that died, she and Derek grew up together). Notice that when I say "rocket scientist" as something everybody understands immediately, I didn't have to designate "aerospace design engineer." Some critics around here take things way too literally.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Heddle to Denyse:
If they plan to force every knee to bend to their uber-philosophy (materialistic atheism), then of course they 'need' to define it. Simply and clearly, for what it is, so everybody knows exactly what they're selling. It's called "Truth In Advertising."
If all they cared about was their in-house jargon to enforce in-group adherence to the uber-philosophy, they wouldn't be lobbying school boards, censoring books in libraries or endlessly spewing insults and inanities on public internet blogs and message boards.
steve:
Having self-appointed 'experts' blog hateful screeds (and ruining innocent people's lives), write pop sci books for the choir and lobby for laws to force teaching of philosophy as science hasn't gotten 'Darwinism' anywhere with the public it's tried to convert in 150 years. Go figure.
Zach:
Case in point.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Joy,
I was an atheist scientist before I was a believing scientist. Never once did we plot how to force every knee to bow. You're drinking the Kool-Aid.
Scientists are not advertising, they are doing science. It's the IDers who engage in (deceptive) advertising, replete with secret stratagems and five-year plans. It's IDers who soiled science with the culture war intrusions and language–and then lied (and continue to lie) about doing so..
Scientists publish papers and do experiments. You can read the papers. You can evaluate the experiments. You can judge how well the theory fits the experiment. You can deem it successful or you can find it wanting, but at no time does anyone need to define their personal philosophy.
For example, I am presently reviewing a paper on the results of an experiment on the photoproduction of Omega particles. They authors put down all manner of assumptions that were employed in the analysis. However, they neglected to mention their world-view–whether it was theistic, atheistic, deistic, atheistic-materialist, or whether they followed stoicism.
And it doesn't matter. They could even be young-earth creationists and it wouldn't matter. The paper is evaluated on its merits, not the spirituality or lack thereof of the authors.
This is not really mysterious, how this all works.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
How is my statement a case a "hateful screed", "ruining innocent people's lives"?!?
A very important concept.
Comment by Zachriel — July 17, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
David Heddle:
I suppose that if you ignore the many culture warrior posts of the #1 science blog and a few other websites to boot you can accurately claim that IDists have a monopoly on culture war intrusions.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Heddle:
And you're kissing booty. Hope that works well for you. BTW, I hate kool-ade. Haven't had any since 1967.
In a word: bullshit. I am an IDer. I've never engaged in deceptive advertising, secret strategems or five-year plans (outside the homestead, where my 5-year plan is to build an office on top of the ridgeline with a 360º view). I've never soiled science (it soiled all over itself long ago without my help), and I've never lied about their little diaper problem. It's not my 'Culture War', I don't claim to be a 'Culture Warrior', and I can't say I'm very impressed with the basic intelligence of any 'Culture Warrior' I've ever encountered.
You may want to either put a lid on your gross generalizations, trim your mile-wide paintbrush, or go ahead and admit you're just playing footsie with your evangelical target group (not to mention trying to save your job). We understand that. Things economic are going to hell in a handbasket, nobody wants to be unemployed these days. Including the poor woman PZ's henchmen managed to get fired over a cracker the other day.
I don't think Jesus would approve.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Bradford,
No, I don't ignore it at all. When PZ goes on a roids rage against religion, he is not doing science (and to my knowledge, he doesn't claim that he is.) So if your argument is "well, PZ busts on the Catholics, so when we do culture war stuff that's just as much science as what he's doing" then we are in agreement.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
David Heddle:
My point was that if you intend to criticize the culture warrior mentality then you need to be even handed and acknowledge this is not limited to IDists. Incidentally, PZ is not unique among ID critics for his culture warrior antics.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Joy:
Which brings up the point of why the complaint is introduced on a blog not known for its "secret strategems."
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Joy,
Not you personally, I am talking about the ID leaders. The Wedge Document is textbook get-your-foot-in-the-door sales tactics. When combined with public pronouncements that ID has nothing to do with religion you have: deception and lies.
When you used they in your previous post–
did you mean every atheist scientist in the world? I doubt it–so don't lecture me about generalizations.
I have tenure. I could claim God told me personally that he created the universe last Tuesday and that I intended to spend all my research time attempting to prove it, and I wouldn't lose my job, as long as I meet all my obligations. So your theory that I am kowtowing to the darkside to preserve my job doesn't hold water.
Of what? Telling the truth?
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
David Heddle:
I'm an IDist who is firmly convinced of God's identity and not reluctant to reveal this when asked. Yet how is my belief, that physical evidence indicates the universe and life found on earth resulted from purposeful causes, religious?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Here is a definition of religious from the Amercican Heritage dictionary:
One can acknowledge evidence for design in nature without believing in or having reverence for God.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Bradford
I too see evidence for design all over the place. What I don’t see is scientific evidence. If I did, I’d publish it immediately. I don’t think you have scientific evidence either—if you do, shame on you for not publishing. The evidence I see is circumstantial—the universe behaves according to relatively simple laws that the human mind can comprehend and accessible to mathematics that the human mind can develop—often linear differential equations instead of something much uglier. I see that as evidence for design and purpose. But I see it (beauty and simplicity) as design evidence because of my faith. If I were an atheist, I would say the same evidence points to something else, like multiple universes or nothing at all. For it to be scientific evidence, I need a theory of its production that is testable. Nobody has one.
So the short answer is: unless someone shows me scientific evidence, I will continue to believe they evidence they see, which I don’t dispute, is non-isolatable, non-quantifiable, aesthetic evidence that they should properly attribute to God but instead try to pawn off as independent of God—perhaps from an evil super alien—because they think that makes the evidence palatable and scientific. It doesn’t. I think it robs God’s glory. And I think people who make such claims, that ID is not about religion, are not kidding anybody, except, perhaps, themselves. But that loophole excludes authors of the Wedge strategy, because they left a paper trail that proves the only people they were trying to fool was the public.
I wouldn’t mind being wrong—just show me some ID science.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Heddle:
Oh, give us all a break, please! "Not you personally," just my fearless leaders? I won't thank you for the blatant insult, David. Nor will I make reference to any of YOUR fearless leaders. If you cannot treat with me as if I have a mind of my own, then we've nothing of interest to talk about.
Bradford:
Apparently because Heddle sez so. And by golly, he should know.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
David Heddle Says:
Now that's funny. Might I just suggest you have a bias on the issue, and your arguments would be more persuasive if you took a step back and took a little bit more nuanced approach.
There is a new thread here about Bradley Monton, and allow me to spam a little, as I quote from one of his articles:
Now he could have said "The literature is filled with lies and deceptions . . .", but a less aggressive approach is not only likely to gain more serious readers, it also reinforces keeping one's own mind clear about what's objective, and what's bias in the way one looks at things.
Now I'll bet I've discussed the issue Monton raised with at least 50 ID critics over the last 10 years, and not one of them seemed to grasp Behe's nuanced point. Written in clear English. So what am I to deduce from that?
The dearly departed Mike Gene, may the Great Bunny rest his soul, used to have a tagline at ARN to the effect that even if one wished to dispute an author's point, one must first read the author to accurately determine what they are actually saying. Because you can't effectively counter a point you don't know or understand.
And I'm living proof of that. I was a Darwinist when I first read Behe's book. I wasn't necessarilly convinced by the book to be a full blown ID advocate. But as I searched around for effective arguments against Behe, I was dumbfounded by how many critics, both famous and anonymous, completely misstated what Behe clearly said. That was a rather eye opening experience. I'm not convinced ID is correct, but I've learned there is a lot less to Darwinism and its arguments than there seems at first blush.
I'm sure David that you see a qualitative difference between how ID operates, and how the Darwinist establishment operates. But part of that is due to the fact that the IDers are trying to get their camel's nose under the tent, where as the Darwinists control the tent and have their camel resting comfortably inside. Putting aside the merits of each sides's arguments, those on the outside of necessity must use different tools than those on the inside.
Now, I don't have any problem with the legions of Darwinists and others who obsess over the Wedge document. It's a waste of time, IMHO, but we all gotta have a hobby. Just realize, that if folks don't share your obsession, dragging out that Wedge is unlikely to persuade anybody. But it makes for a nice security blanket for some I guess.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 17, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Roger Rabbit,
I have done my reading. When you quoted me I was referring to the wedge document—you conveniently cropped the context. I defy you to read the wedge document and make a case that the ID leaders who signed on to the wedge strategy did not have religious motivations for their ID push. Unless you can do that, then I'll continue to believe that "deception and lying" are appropriate descriptors.
It case it is not clear: religious motivations are fine. I have plenty of them. Hiding them is not. It is unseemly, with no precedent whatsoever in the New Testament.
That is necessarily true, because I know what ID is, but I don’t know what the Darwinist Establishment is. Can you identify who at my university is in the Darwinist Establishment? But even if I did, even if I conceded that Darwinists ruled the academy and plotted against believers, I would still come down hard on deceitful Christians, because I hold them to a higher standard. (And they should do likewise with me.) What do I care if PZ behaves like a beast? What do I care if Dawkins impugns God’s character? That’s nothing compared to Christians behaving badly.
Joy,
Oh please do, I want to know who you think my leaders are.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
David Heddle:
Who are these people leading? I have yet to see any marching orders. The wedge document is old news. We know the DI membership is mostly reigious but so what? Does David Berlinski have greater credibility because he is not religious?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
David,
I didn't crop anything, your entire post is still on the thread for all to read.
I read the document years ago, and didn't see anything very interesting then. I just glanced at it again. Still don't see the fuss. Yes, there are religious and philosophical and cultural themes addressed in the document. So? It also says:
You imply that this is the hidden agenda that must be true. If so, it seems like they are proceeding in an ethical manner, no?
First, I've never seen any signatures on the Wedge document, so I'm not sure who you mean by "ID leaders who signed on to the wedge strategy". Secondly, I couldn't care less what their motivations are, hidden or otherwise. That's another obsession of yours that I don't share.
Feel free to embrace all the logical fallacies you wish. Humans have all kinds of mixed motivations hidden and otherwise. It's a fool's errand to worry about what the "true" motivations are when we are dealing with issues that are being debated in the public arena, IMHO. The arguments stand on their own.
As far as your New Testament claim, I'll let you take that up with a believer, which I am not.
I'm not sure I said anything about "plotting against believers". It's more akin to one political party taking over Congress. They control the agendas, the committees, etc. I'm not alledging wrongdoing, merely the exercise of power.
It's ironic that you claim ID is religiously motivated, when it's really you that are. And openly exposing your bias at the same time. You don't care about folks being behaving badly, only Christians. But that works out well for me. Because I'm not a theist.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 17, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
RogerRabbit
I didn't say you edited my post, I said you cropped the context when you quoted me. I wrote:
You left of the reference to the wedge document, providing no context as to what the "deception and lies" was in reference to.
Oh give me a break. It is clear enough–the entire DI braintrust knew of the wedge document and strategy, yet they continued to state that ID is not religiously motivated.
Please don't call something ad hominem if it is not ad hominem. If I said ID was not science because Wells is a Moonie, that would be an ad hominem. If I say the IDists lied about ID not being religiously motivated because there exists a document revealing a secret strategy that spells out their religious motivation, that's not an ad hominem. People should learn a fallacy means before they cheaply level the charge.
All that demonstrates is that in addition to religious goals that were shamelessly hidden in a secret document, they were already making promises about research that they would never keep. It just further impugns the integrity of the proponents of the document and strategy.
Why is that ironic? It should be expected. As a Christian I am distressed that big-name IDists hide their religious motivations. As a scientist I am distressed that they attack science, an activity that was ordained by God.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
RogerRabbit:
I want to thank you for posting, Roger. What you've got to say is not just refreshing, it echoes many long-ago stated views here. I've never had a problem with the concept of evolution. We get an awful lot of you-know-what aimed at us as if we're Pat Robertson and Billy Graham rolled into one, but we're not. Never have been. Just read the banner subheading.
I'm not religious. I do believe in God. What I may disagree with are descriptions, names, and rules. Across all of 'em. My belief that life and evolution are intelligently designed has nothing to do with my spiritual proclivities, beyond my serious distaste for atheistic arrogance (such as PZ displays regularly). But even then I'm likely to be sympathetic. If PZ had lost his job wrongly, I'd be almost as upset (but he's not a real 'innocent').
I might be too naive to really play the kind of games that are played on the internet in this particular 'Culture War'. Probably always was too naive, even when I got invited to post here. They might have been using me. I don't really know. Can't really know. Thus "face value."
There are posters here, and commentors as well, that I like a lot, per the personas they've forwarded. That's all I can know of them, and that has to serve. There are a few critics I'm rather fond of too, can imagine around my backyard campfire on occasion, could probably have fun without fisticuffs. But I can't say I really 'know' any of it, because this is cyberspace. Everything (including me) is a scam – an avatar. A cyber-game.
You can't really know who I am either, can you? I could be anybody. Or nobody. If no one will engage on my terms, then there's no point in being here.
I enjoy your posts. Please stay awhile. I'll read!
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
July 17th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Heddle:
"Secret document?" My goodness, David. How "secret" can it be if both you and all the religion-haters know about it? I'm not getting it. Care to explain?
Despite the FACT that the document isn't 'secret' (as amply demonstrated by general knowledge of its existence and text), I suppose it never occurred to you that it never had anything to do with the scientific validity of a telic hypothesis. Because that might interfere with your personal kudos for however many damned atheistic Darwinists you can bring into the fold by your own personal efforts. Brownie points. Ego-strokes. Will it buy you a way into heaven, David?
I still don't think Jesus would be impressed, personally. But what would I know about Jesus? My god might be way different than yours.
So. While I've got you here… you're okay with the US government sentencing thousands of innocent citizens to gnarly death ( and long-term poisoning of thousands of children) because the truth might compromise corporate (thus 'National Security') profits? YOUR area of expertise, since you claimed it. Do you know the truth? Who told it to you? Wanna wrestle?
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Hi All,
Since everyone agrees that the Wedge Document is no longer secret and that we should understand people's positions and goals before we criticize them, I thought it appropriate to restate the governing goals of the Discovery Institute…
link
Now I have tried to separate the actions and activities of the ID Movement from the ID Science.
And to that end I, too, would encourage Roger Rabbit's continued participation in the discussion.
He seems to know a great deal about Dembski's calculations for "eliminating" chance hypotheses. (It appears that "eliminating" may be a little strong, more appropriately "less likely than not").
But eliminating chance hypotheses doesn't require supporting the existence of God. Quantum Mechanics clearly provides for the appearance of randomness in nature.
In Darwin's Black Box Behe focused on the small. The implication was that extremely close examinations of the tiny machinery of life provides insight to its origin and possible purpose.
I kid you not that I was hoping Behe's followup book would at least show a glimmer of continuing the boldness of his first book. But alas, the siren song of the Movement was apparently too strong.
Supporting a popular movement is more immediately rewarding than being right. Especially if it corresponds with one's faith.
I believe God it Love and Love is God. I can also accept the possibility that the universe is an Ultimate Invention created by and Ultimate Engineer. Neither concept requires (nor compels) me to worry about "replac[ing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding".
Science is an interesting enough challenge without trying to force fit it into a philosophical mold or to accommodate the "Big Tent" of a popular movement.
If you want to do science then "Let's do Science!"
If you want to claim to know the one and only Truth for us all, or to replace one camel with another, then don't act surprised when people suggest it is hypocritical to say one thing while doing another.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 18, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
TP:
And you're quite sure it's random because… what? Because you can't predict? That's easily remedied, you know. Just choose what to see, and that's what you'll see. Problem solved. It's called "observer effect".
Comment by Joy — July 18, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hi Joy,
I was worried that particular statement of mine might have been confusing.
I had tried to change it to read…
"Quantum Mechanics clearly provides for the appearance of randomness in nature but there is scientic evidence supporting the concept that all quantum effects are, in fact, not random just extremely complex due to being interconnected in space and time."
However, I messed up the edit and lost my chance to change it.
Thank you for providing the link. Hopefully, it helped make the point.
At the risk of preaching to the choir, yes I still think life and consciousness are a directly tied to Quantum Mechanics and there is no such thing as randomness.
Nothing new.
It this the same old ID hypothesis that we have been talking about for around a year now (you much longer than that).
A scientific hypothesis that could be embraced by the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement, but isn't.
Heck, it appears they aren't even interested in embracing the more open-ended yet serious approach Mike Gene offered in the Design Matrix.
Nothing new, Joy. As you have said multiple times in the past. This is all about dueling metaphysics. A duel that is carried out by actors pretending to be something or someone they aren't and getting angry when their noses get tweeked by the stark honesty of fools (professional or not) who aren't interested in supporting either side.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 18, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Because it wasn't directly relevant to the point I was making. But you've now asserted it for the third time. I think we can safely assume that anybody who is interested in the fact that you think you have license to treat folks badly because you speak the magic phrase "Wedge Document" will have read it.
It doesn't change anything for me. To you, "wedge document" seems like "42" to Douglas Adams' galaxy: the answer to the ultimate question, and apparently a valid excuse for boorish behavior.
Who is the braintrust and why is that clear? And even if I grant that for sake of argument, you seem to be confusing ID with DI CRSC. They are not the same. The DI can support ID for reasons that include religion, but it in no way means ID itself is religion, or that the only motivation for ID proponents is religious. Dawkins has made no secret of how Darwinism supports his athiestic agenda. That doesn't change the fact that it still has to stand and fall on the data, logic and arguments.
I think the case has been made, and confirmed by your damning admissions that you are only going after xtians. Funny that Miller's whoppers don't seem to make your radar.
But let me accept you are only trying to save the souls of fellow Xtians. You've picked an interesting venue, because most folks are here to discuss secular issues. So, if I've misunderstood your position, and you aren't making claims about the issues of scienece, evolution and ID, but are here to make the case that Xtians frequently sin, I'll be happy to acknowledge that.
So now being overly optimistic about your view of the nature of reality is to lack integrity. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible, "Judge not, lest yee be judged"? If that be true, your pretty shaky judgements might come back to haunt you. But seriously, again, it just part of the process of trying to change a difference of opinion into a moral or cultural war. And you're doing that every bit as much as any of those you oppose, and methinks a bit more. Not that you aren't free to do so. But you won't convince many outside the choir.
Yea, you and Pat Robertson are both pretty sure what God ordains. You'll excuse me if I remain skeptical of you both.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 18, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Joy says:
Thanks for the kind words. I used to debate a lot more on the nitty gritty details in other venues, but I don't have the time or the zeal anymore. But I disagree with those who say the discussion is a waste of time. Sure it frequently goes around in a circle and few are persuaded to change their minds. But the Metadiscussion is fascinating to watch if one takes a metaphorical step back. One can learn a lot about human nature, and so-called experts.
Yes, people might be using us both. But if we enjoy the ride, where's the harm?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 18, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
TP says:
I'm not sure how you not liking his 2nd book translates into "the siren song of the Movement was apparently too strong". Actually, the point of the 2nd book was to answer some of the critics, to take it out of the realm of logical analysis, and apply hard data to the issue.
I was actually pleasantly surprised by the book, figuring it might just be a rehash of DBB. But it was an interesting look from another perspective.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 18, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
TP:
Whenever I encounter people of widely divergent worldviews who all 'went to the same school' (think and behave exactly alike), I am once again impressed with the notion that aberrant human thought and behavioral patterns appear to be biochemically-based – thus no doubt genetically influenced and deterministic.
It's *not* that they're pretending, TP. Or that they're lying, even to themselves. There are no choices out there on the fringes, there is pathological certainty. They don't believe, they know. It's a mind-virus, just like Dawkins said (but forgot to include himself).
It's a mistake to assume all human thought and behavioral patterns are deterministic just because mental/personality disorders display a pat set of symptoms no matter who's got the disease, but I can see why some would dearly love to believe so. Sometimes it takes the madness in the wings to boil over before necessary, creative change can occur. THAT is indeterministic, a product of actual free will, and it comes from the middle where people really have freedom to choose.
Comment by Joy — July 18, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
RogerRabbit:
You're welcome. At least you're more a rabbit than a duck. Have you read Mike's book? I think you'd like it.
Yeah, but you can learn a lot about so-called 'experts' in court, too. Or out on the front lines where lying to the public is a regular way of life (and intricately choreographed, using science to deceive). I've never found human nature all that inspiring.
When it's no longer enjoyable it's time to step back. I may be quickly reaching that stage.
Comment by Joy — July 18, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Joy asked Roger…
Good question. Inquiring minds want to know.
It is still available at Amazon for the low, low price of $16.47.
I have read it. It is clear and honest.
It would be a natural book to suggest as a balanced approach to the subject. Of course, that presupposes an interest in a balanced approach.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 18, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
July 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Hi Roger,
You wrote…
That is a non sequitur. My like or dislike of Behe's 2nd book is unconnected to the ID Movement's influence on Behe. I suspect you already knew that.
Even before the book was released the praise from the ID Movement leaders was unabashed. If Behe really wanted to answer his critics he would have offered positive arguments in support of a clear hypothesis. Instead, Behe followed the standard creationist tactic of questioning “Darwinism”. While this played well with the faithful, it did little to support ID as a scientific argument.
Without a plausible explanation or hypothesis Behe’s “hard data” was and is a non sequitur.
A Quantum Mechanical hypothesis at least offers a reason for the data we see.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 18, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Without a plausible explanation or hypothesis Behe’s “hard data” was and is a non sequitur.
Is not design a plausable explanation? It works for insurance fraud.
Let’s just say for the sake of argument that Behe proposed that all genetic adaptations that went beyond the edge were the result of genetic engineering carried out in the same way that such engineering is done in labs today with test tubes and microscopes?.
Would you agree that this was a valid hypothesis? Or would a hypothesis need to exclude everything but natural phenomena like quantum fluctuations to be acceptable in your view?
If this "in the lab option" was how adaptations beyond the edge happened how could we know such a thing? I’m just curious I’m not advocating anything.
As you know I like your QM idea because unlike the "in the lab option" I believe if true it makes the Christ event scientifically certain.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 19, 2008 @ 12:09 am
July 19th, 2008 at 11:10 am
RogerRabbitt,
If the ID leaders tried to do science and failed, then they could be excused for being overly optimistic. Scientific failure is noble in its own right. They didn’t try. Worse, they followed up their Wedge Document optimism with additional false prophecies of impending ID success and an imminent evolution death spiral. When that didn’t happen they didn’t admit that they hadn’t delivered on their promises—but argued instead that they would have and could have except they’ve been persecuted.
Oh noes! I never reads that verse! Wait, that comes just before the passage that instructs: do not cast pearls before swine and do not give what is holy to dogs. Unless you think that it literally refers to swine and dogs, it then presupposes that we can and should judge who are swine and who are dogs. And later in the same chapter it even tells us how to judge. In short, “Judge not” does not mean what you are implying it means.
Well, I am sure of one thing: you are a jackass. But when it comes to what God ordains, Pat Robertson argues that God ordains things not found in scripture, like wiping out apostate American cities by natural disaster. What I claimed was ordained was science. That is found in scripture. Cheap analogies (and misapplying charges of logical fallacy) are the sign of an insufficient intellect—of one who cannot argue cogently. It appears that these are the primary tools in your debate arsenal.
Well, there you go again with the bad analogies. “42” is the answer to the meaning of life question in a work of comedic fiction. The wedge document does not come from comedic fiction but from a different genre, unintentionally comedic non-fiction. It doesn’t matter how old it is. It will forever represent the fact that the ID leaders were secretly plotting one thing while stating something altogether different in public. It will forever represent that the ID leaders are actually interested in culture wars, not science. It will forever represent that they are willing to practice evangelism by deception, something not found in the bible, either explicitly or implicitly.
I’ll add an opinion. I don’t believe you are a “refreshing” enlightened “unbeliever.” It doesn’t make it through my nixplanatory filter. I think you are a sock puppet.
Comment by David Heddle — July 19, 2008 @ 11:10 am
July 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
TP:
Once again, the QM hypothesis – as applicable to life and evolution – has been out there for at least three decades. Theories have been forwarded (and have their fans), biophysics is a burgeoning branch of science, excellent work has been done and is being done, large numbers of biologists don't even read Charlie Darwin anymore at any point in their education. Systems approaches are bearing fruit, as are non-linear science and organized systems, proteomics and genomics, epigenetics, evo-devo and other expanded sidelines. None of it has anything to do with Darwin or Darwinism beyond the "Duh" of selection over deep time. We're learning how variation and adaptation occur. Darwin knew nothing of this.
Evolutionary biology is in such a state of flux right now with incoming evidence and changing approaches that there is no uber-theoretic anymore. This bruhaha has interested more people in the issues than anything Charlie Darwin or anybody else ever did, which is a good thing. New biologists are being trained right now who have no great attachment to dogma and orthodoxy, and they're getting ever more useful tools. We're learning a lot about life, and it doesn't look much like NDS.
I don't have a problem with Behe (or any other 'challenger') driving the last nail in Charlie's coffin. God knows he's earned a coffin after being dead for over a century! What comes next is what comes next. It needn't be accepted as 'New Orthodoxy' before the old orthodoxy can receive Last Rites.
Comment by Joy — July 19, 2008 @ 11:12 am
July 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
David Heddle:
I am biblically literate and linguistically inclined but confess that I do not know what you mean by this. Science was ordained by God? Therefore an attack on science is an attack on God? How is a distinction made between a scientific critique and an attack?
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Bradford,
Yes, science was ordained. Theologians generally accept the concept of two complementary revelations, special (the bible) and general (nature.) Catholics would add a third (sacred tradition.) The study of special revelation is theology; the study of general is science. It would be hard to argue that one was ordained and not the other. In addition, God proclaimed the material realm good—a perhaps unique doctrine among the world’s religions which generally cast the physical as an illusion or evil. That fact that it is good implies that studying it (science) is also good. Finally, as I know you know, scriptures explicitly state that the heavens declare God’s glory, and those who ignore the attributes of God in nature do so at their own peril. I could go on, but that is tantamount to ordaining science, unless you think that the heavens declare God’s glory, but woe to them who study the heavens. And not appreciating creation puts men at risk and yet studying creation also puts men at risk. Christians who attack science are, in effect, proclaiming God to be a god of confusion.
Comment by David Heddle — July 19, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
David Heddle, it is your last sentence that begs for a delineation of what attack means. Arguing that planets do not move in ellipitical orbits around the sun can be construed as many things including an attack on well founded scientific data. Arguing against the belief that functional nucleic acids spontaneously form and became the genetic information storage units of initial cells, whose formation dynamics are unknown, is not an attack on science IMO. Neither does it indicate confusion on God's part to not ordain the inevitability of cellular formation from physical laws. There is a need to not impute our own confusion to divine confusion.
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
David Heddle:
Could you give an example
I have yet to meet such a creature. Even the most backward fundamentalists that I know of respect science as a means of learning about God and his creation.
What Christians attack is among other things
Certain metaphysical implications incorrectly drawn from science
The idea that material science is a magic crystal ball that explains everything leaving no need for special revelation
The worship of science to the point of assuming it is the savior of mankind.
Science like theology is neutral it’s the scientists and the theologians who are not.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 19, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Pushing ID into the science classroom when it is not science is an example of an attack on science. Casting science/methodological naturalism as the evil "materialistic ideology" is an attack on science. Claiming that a scientific program has a "big tent policy" is an attack on science, because science is a meritocracy, not a big tent. On UD, they recently posted about Dembski and Wells's new book. The description included this, emphasis added:
Now, I wish this were true. But we'll have to wait and see. Are these promises nothing more than a new round of exaggerations, also known as lies, and hence, as they are masquerading as science, constitute an attack on science? Or have Dembski and Wells succeeded in scientifically demonstrating that ID is necessary to explain life? Given that life exists, this would be nothing less than a scientific proof of ID. In that case Dembski and Wells will win a Nobel Prize, and many of us will eat a ton of crow.
I'm not worried.
Comment by David Heddle — July 19, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
fifth monarchy man
You have never met such a creature? John Morris, Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind are three that come to mind immediately.
Comment by David Heddle — July 19, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
July 19th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
David Heddle:
It bears remembering that there is no experimental evidence showing that a cell is the end product of a series of extracellular reactions. That means the issue is open ended with respect to solutions. It is interesting that in spite of our knowledge of cellular biology and genetics we are unable to construct a self-replicating cell from scratch.
Why should you be David? If Dembski were to be successful, along these lines, would that bother you?
Comment by Bradford — July 19, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 8:08 am
David Heddle:
Science must be very fragile in your mind if what these folks do is considered an attack. As far as I know you won’t find any of these folks claiming that science is evil or that Christians should avoid it. They just think the reigning paradigm is incorrect. By that definition Copernicus attacked science.
I agree that ID should not be taught in the classroom yet, but a public school science classroom is not “science”. It’s where science is supposed to be taught.
Talking about the teacher’s favorite TV show in algebra class might not be the best use of time but it is not an attack on Math
Deriding methodological naturalism is not an attack on science because methodological naturalism is not science just ask Isaac Newton or the researchers receiving Templeton grants.
Evolutionary Biology has a “big tent policy” how else could you have folks advocating punctuated equilibrium and folks advocating gradualism both claim to be evolutionary biologists. If this kind of thing is an attack on science shouldn’t the gradualists try and “expel” everyone else for the sake of the children.
Really David, your life would be better if just relaxed and didn’t assume that disagreements about facts were attacks on your precious science and by implication God.
The fact that you do explains why folks like you work so hard to silence those who disagree.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 20, 2008 @ 8:08 am
July 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
David,
Maybe we can agree on the fact that further dialogue between us doesn't appear to hold much chance of being productive. I will accept my part of the blame for that.
I'll address the last paragraph of your post.
Let me just say that I never figured that you thought I was "refreshing" or "enlightened". I'm guessing, although I can't tell for sure, that the "sock puppet" charge relates to you disbelieving my "unbeliever" status. I get that alot from ID critics.
Again, for me, that is all part of the fascination for me of the Meta-discussion. ID critics are good ad at hominems based on no evidence. Although they claim to speak from a position defending logic, rationality and facts, it usually doesn't show.
But, they also will stand to reap that which they sow.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 20, 2008 @ 11:54 am
July 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Joy,
I haven't yet. The only book on ID I've read in the last couple of years was Behe's 2nd. My intellectual energies have moved on to other issues for the most part. I've thought about buying his book, and Berlinski's latest, but have a little bit of a backlog on my "To read" list for now.
But I agree, when ride is no longer fun, it's probably time to move on. There are plenty of other things to do with one's life.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — July 20, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
July 20th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
RogerRabbit:
ID critics impute both irrationality and religious motivations to IDists, so if one supports ID, or aspects of it, and claims to be non-Christian or irreligious, the sock charge is dictated to conserve the stereotype. Macht recently posted a blog entry on an atheist with favorable views of ID. Berlinski is not a theist. These are rational people.
Comment by Bradford — July 20, 2008 @ 2:18 pm