Tying Up Loose Ends
by MikeGeneEd Brayton has a brief follow-up reply to me. It is great to see that Ed does indeed make distinctions and does not lump us with the ID movement. He notes it is possible that we are pushing a religious agenda and are part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement, but acknowledges there is no evidence of this. The reason there is no evidence of this is because we are not pushing a religious agenda and are not part of the PR apparatus of the ID movement. He further notes that he does not see us "lobbying school boards to get ID into science classrooms either" and again, this is because we don't. In fact, years ago, I argued strongly against introducing ID into the science classrooms. Also, for years I have been noting that there is no "ID theory" and that ID does not qualify as science. And let's not forget that we embraced the Dover decision, and the post-wedge world, with a smile and open arms.
That Ed is able to make these distinctions is further evidence that he stands on principle. I would also suggest that the ability to make such a distinction further supports the validity of my critic typology. Since people like Krauze and I are not politically motivated, Ed is entirely correct to note that we "simply don't matter much." Type A critics have no reason to feel threatened by us. Yes, we often cross swords with them, but if you look closely, it almost always involves us responding to the stereotypes that are being perpetuated, stereotypes that can squelch a reasoned discussion of ID and have the potential to harm people such as Krauze and myself.
For example, consider the ID = creationism meme. When we object to this, it seems that many type A critics think we are trying to provide some sort of cover for the ID movement. This is a gross misinterpretation. Krauze and I object to the meme because, when focused on the concept of ID, the meme is false. Also, Krauze and I are not creationists. It would be foolish for us to remain silent about the meme as the meme steps all over the discussion that Krauze and I are interested in.
Of course, with type C critics, the situation is different. Since they are politically motivated, people like Krauze and I represent a threat to their agenda. Always remember that they hear "God" when "ID" is spoken. Thus, in the mind of the type C critic, we are among the "enemy."
What this therefore means is that there is likely to be a strong correlation between those who fixate on us and are most upset with us and those who are the type C version of Evangelical Atheists. The irony is then found in the way things have turned.
For years, critics have painted people such as Krauze and myself as part of a movement, while the critics postured as open-minded judges interested only in "evidence." But as we travel further into the post-wedge world, in turns out that the critics who dislike us most are likely to be the ones who are themselves part of a movement.
January 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Absolutely. The first evidence I saw of your typology and the divisions in the ranks was in 2005 when the Type C critics indirectly accused Eugenie Scott (Type A) and directly the Editors of Nature (Type B) of hypocrisy: Scientists Speak Out. At the time I did not appreciate what was going on, and thought it an anomaly rather than the result of a fundamental typology of principles and values. It's clear now those were the seeds of division.
Where this division was played out was pertaining to ID outside of the public school sphere (in that case the universities). Now with the post-wedge world there is more room for this typology to become increasingly apparent. Recall Ed's reaction to the treatment of university students and Larry Moran's comments?
What I predict also is that the Type A critics will increasingly find themselves simultaneously trashing ID while defending the civil liberties and principles of human dignity of the IDers against the attacks of the Type C critics. Not an easy position to be in.
A strong correlation will also be found in those who are upset with Ed and the type C critics.
I think the shrill rhetoric coming out of the type C gang is because they are feeling marginalized and losing power. I began to forsee that 2 years ago. I could of course be wrong, but their demeanor does not strike me as the demeanor of champions.
I would expect Ed and TelicThoughts to be frequently in agreement on matters of principle and civil liberties. He is beginning to see you guys for what you really are. As Ed has lately absorbed abuse from the Type C's, some of the scales dropped from his eyes (or at the least he saw things he didn't notice before). He called PZ a liar! I don't recall he ever had such words for you! That says a lot, imho.
By the way, some on Ed's weblog refer to you as a DI hack. I couldn't help but be amused at how powerfully certain stereotypes are relied on….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 1, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I think you make a lot of good points.
Dembski and Behe have new books coming out, so there will be opportunity for them to kiss and make up. But the fact remains that the type C critics have a transparent agenda and are part of a movement (this was not the case in the pre-Dover days). So you are right.
I think you are right. Scott comes across as a winner, who quietly cements her victory by now turning to colleagues to encourage them to respect religion. Elsberry comes across as a winner as he heads back into the world of research. Myers? He is as angry as he has always been. He stands there left with nothing but raw threatiness as he hunts down dinky little stories to rail against.
This is also a very good point. In fact, other type As have watched how easy it has been for the type Cs to turn on them. When Myers lashes out at us as "˜ID creationists,' he's the same guy that lashes out at Ken Miller as a creationist and his fellow critics as appeasers. The demonization strategy was useful in the pre-Dover days, but in the post-wedge world, and in light of the anti-religion movement, more and more type A critics might find themselves at the end of this demonization stick. They've been watching it happen. And it's because they have allied themselves with zealots who are part of a passionate movement. Remember, as far as the type Cs are concerned, the type As are part of the problem. Victory against ID takes them one step closer to being in the cross-hairs.
And embedded in that stereotype is the stereotype that I am as dumb as a brick. If I am a DI hack, then sooner or later, it will come out. That's how the world works. And if it came out, then everything I stood for will be discredited, even in the eyes of TT readers. I can say that am I not a DI hack because I am not.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
There is a subtlety I would like to address. From the standpoint of school boards, elections, court decisions the Type A can feel there was a resounding defeat of ID. In fact, come to think of it, you are right, Genie Scott and that segment of the critics can feel victorious and one can almost sense it in the weblogs and press releases…
Ironically, the Type C critics appear fearful and dejected. I could of course be wrong, but when I mingle with my atheist friends, I sense their anxiety about the world becoming less secular. I mean, I mention Dover to them, and their reaction is almost, "so what?" Whether their fear is empirically justified is anyone's guess, but they have so promoted the idea the sky is falling, some of them really believe it.
In my churches while growing up, I'm told Christianity is failing and we must do something about it. I still hear that from the pulpits occasionally as incentive to evangelize. Then I meet and mingle with atheists like Jason Rosenhouse, and he laments that's Christianity is prevailing. Who should I believe? I came to the conclusion, it's too tough to call what's really going on, and (to quote Doris Day), "whatever will be, will be."
However, the type C's seem to sincerely believe secularism is in crisis. And where this leads is that rather than the Type C lashing out at Type A because the Type C's feel victorious, it seems to me (and I could be wrong), that it's much like an organization where something goes wrong and there is a lot of finger pointing and blaming.
I recall the words of Sam Harris to Lauren Sandler's book, Righteous:
Either that's an exaggeration of what they believe, or that's what they really believe. If that's what they really believe, then that is consistent with my impression that they do not project the aura of champions, but rather that of people eager to place the blame for the failures of secularism and "science".
So the irony is, in the post wedge world, Type A feels relatively victorious, and Type C feels abandoned by its allies in a losing fight.
Sal
PS
By the way, thanks for going on record that you're not a "DI hack". There has been a long standing speculation by my some at ARN that your true identity is Michael Behe.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 1, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I don't think people realize how much 911 has shaped this debate.
As for Behe, I think he has something like nine kids. Someone with nine kids doesn't have time to play on the internet.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
And there is something else to consider. It's important to remember the internet critics are not the "scientific community." What happened in the
pre-Dover days was that the critics were starting to get more and more attention from the larger scientific community. And they were being perceived as Knights defending the integrity of Science. Mainstream science journals were even providing links to their sites.
Since Dover, the scientific community has largely gone back to the lab, and the critics are increasingly left to talking among themselves and being noticed mostly by the "creationists." The time might even come when they will try to provoke a big site like UD to get some traffic.
[BTW, thank Gil for that plug as the last time we had that many visitors when was Michelle Malkin linked to us!]
Anyway, as we all know, politicians in Washington often won't do anything about controversial issues because they want the issue for political reasons. The type A critics wanted to defeat ID in the real world and the type Cs wanted the issue. After all, the type As did all the heavy lifting when it came to winning Dover.
A Dover victory would have been bad, bad, bad for ID.
Comment by MikeGene — January 1, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Heh, much less release two books in the same year, at roughly the same time.
Comment by Deuce — January 1, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
January 1st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Brayton is a man of principle, is willing to reform his views to some extent in the face of evidence. He has on occassion shown lapses in objectivity or at least the exercise of equal standards (recall the Karen Armstrong incident).
But there is an grave imprecision on his part in the conception of what the ID movement is. That imprecision is understandable, nonetheless it is there. He continues to view ID through the lense of the Evangelical Right lobbying school boards and legislatures. Indeed elements of Evangelical Right does this, but even then he is too quick to attribute behavior of some on the right to all of the right. For example, even Lauren Sandler astutely observed:
So not even the brazen AiG was pushing for the clumsy policy of the Dover school board, yet many Evangelical must suffer the shame of the actions of a few in their ranks, not to mention the ID movement as well.
Ed's quickness to paint with a broad brush is understanable, but inaccurate. When I give talks on ID, the presumption is I'm principally involved trying to get support in lobbying state legislatures and school boards. I get strange looks of bewilderment when ask "Salvador, why are you pushing for ID in public school science classes." I tell them I don't lobby for that, I'm against the idea in general, and I'd like to see ID in college philosophy and religion classes. I remember after saying that, seeing audience members get up and leave in disgust. Guess they were looking for a fight.
Brayton seems to think that legislative action and school boards on ID are part and parcel of gaining political power for the Religious Right. For some on the right that may be true, but for many it really boils down to people pondering (like Antony Flew) whether life and the universe are designed. That is the real core of the ID movement, interest in that simple and basic question.
Unlike the church oriented creationism of ICR and AiG, ID originated mainly among Theistic Evolutionists and variety of views in higher academia, not Evangelical Ministries. A very important part of the ID movement pertains to the plight of professors in higher academia (Beckwith, Gonzalez, Dembski, Minnich, Bryson, Bryan, Crocker, etc.). The names of all those sympathetic cannot be possibly listed, many are hidden. For example there are several schools I am aware where there is not a single signatory on the DI's list, but there are large numbers of fearful but sympathetic faculty at those schools. For the first time, because of the internet, they can be supported advised and encouraged. And then there are the students. Brayton fails to appreciate how important this side of the movement really is. There are careers and diplomas at stake, not merely legislative agendas.
This forms the core of the ID movement, imho. People asking the simple question of whether life and the universe are designed, and others trying to give them answers. And if one makes that exploration, in some cases it has consequences for them (i.e. Sternberg, Gonzalez). Everything else about the movement is secondary.
It ought to occur to Ed, that for some people this simple question is important enough for it's own sake. The PR, the peer-review, the politics is just fluff to this central question.
And I believe this simple question is the inspiration for TelicThoughts. This simple question certainly was impetus for my involvement in ID (not to mention the twisted entertainment I get from internet debate), and certainly it is the case for many of the students in college and ordinary people pondering the great questions of life. That is the real ID movement, imho…
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 1, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sal,
If by "principle" you mean the 'principles' of ivory tower hubris and self assured sanctimonious arrogance, then yes I concur. Here's the latest example. (from his condescending reply to you, in fact.)
Apparently Ed believes that he is part of a handful of super-elite minds that are able to comprehend The Theory of Evolution. This apparently gives him jurisdiction to make judgements about scientific merit. (Nevermind the fact that it's taught in 9th grade - it just needs to be taught, not understood)
So Salvador, for his first judgement, Ed has made the judgement that your posts and speaking engagements are exclusively targeted towards know-nothings…
and that actually you are a know-nothing as well.
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great."
- Mark Twain
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
- Mark Twain
Comment by chunkdz — January 2, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I think Brayton is right. It has nothing to do with ivory tower elitism. You wouldn't expect a guy of the street to compete with a world class runner in a foot race, why would you expect a guy of the street to "compete" with a top scientist in a field that he has spent most of his life studying? World class runners probably have some degree of natural talent (that the rest of us probably don't have) combined with years of training (that the rest of us probably haven't had). A similar thing could be said about scientists, I think. This doesn't mean that the average person can't study up on evolution or other things, but chances are he won't be able to make judgments on par with that of an actual scientist.
Comment by macht — January 2, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I agree with you. But Brayton didn't say that.
Brayton is not talking about whether you and I can compete with evolutionary biologists. He says that you and I are unqualified to make "any judgement on the scientific merits of evolution", and that to do so would be "laughably absurd".
What color did you perceive the tower to be? It still looks ivory to me.
Comment by chunkdz — January 2, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I'd be willing to bet that Brayton would include himself amongst the
mere mortalsnon-scientists who can't make judgments on the scientific merits of evolution. I also don't think I'm qualified to judge evolution on scientific grounds (which is why my posts never deal with the scientific evidence for or against evolution). I guess I just don't see the problem with what he is saying there.Comment by macht — January 2, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 pm
macht,
I can appreciate your perspective, and I offer these thougths.
What has happened however is some of us who are not formally researchers, but are far more competent than evolutionary biologists in a relevant field (namely information science, computer science, and engineering), are more than qualified to challenge their ideas. In fact far better qualified than we are given credit for.
I kept citing Trevors and Abel's paper, and Voie's paper. They articulated the case from information and computer science as well as any paper I have seen to date.
The questions I posed regarding evolutionary mechanisms building a self-replicating computer (which each life form contains), is a relevant one which every information engineer and communication engineer and computer engineer can appreciate. They will not get any satisfying answers from the evolutionary biologists, and Trevors and Abel point out why they probably never will.
I recall arguing with some evoltionary biology post docs. I couldn't fathom how easily the began to use circular reasoning to defend their ideas. If this is the level of their scientific understanding, this is really distressing!!!
Ed may have been able to sell that argument a few years ago, but now that at least 3 significant peer-reviewed articles and 1 peer-reviewed book have come out on the topic it isn't going to be so easy. Experts from the relevant fields are giving their blessing to the work of Trevors, Abel, and Voie. These articles didn't appear in evolutionary biology journals, and I don't expect that they will since evolutionary biologists in general would not be qualified. They appeared in physics journals and one in a cell biology journal.
The one notable area of evolutionary biology I consider to be first rate and an exception to most the rest of the field is population genetics with the names of guys like Kimura, Haldane, Ronald Fisher, Sewell Right, Juke, King, Crow etc. Ironically, it was from this community the idea of "non-Darwinian" evolution has quietly established itself solidly within the evolutionary community.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 2, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
I'm not suggesting that scientists can just dismiss non-scientists because they aren't scientists. While I agree with the quote that was provided above (and I have no idea what context it was written in either since I don't know where the quote came from), I wouldn't approve of that attitude being used by scientists in order to dismiss critiques by people in different fields of expertise simply because they aren't, say, an evolutionary biologist. For example, if somebody were to say "I don't have to take Sal's critique seriously because he isn't a biologist" that would be wrong. But I took Ed's quote to be making a more general statement about the "average Joe" making critiques of things he doesn't have a full understanding of.
(BTW, I'm a comm. engineer (I studied statistical signal processing in grad school and my advisor's main area of research was genome informatics and bioinformatics) and some of the stuff I've seen about evolutionary algorithms (e.g., Pennock on Avida) frustrate me to no end. In fact, I've been meaning to do a post about that topic for some time.)
Comment by macht — January 2, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Macht,
If I have misinterpreted what you said, my sincere apologies. Regarding you comment above, that means you know far more than I!
But Avida and Pennock are the "cutting edge" of evolutionary biology. It is their best shot. I looked at it and was appalled it was almost a Junior level computer science exercise, not what I would expect of a first rate research project that makes it to the pages of Nature.
The evo community lap it up like it's God's truth. PZ Myers, John Lynch, and the venerable Allen MacNeil look on it favorably. Yet you and I know, if we formed a committee of information technology grad students and professors on the topic, there would be a lively discussion about Avida's truthfulness, and there certainly would not be unanimity in favor of its major claims.
If the ID community had two million research dollars, we could torpedo that project for good. That's the other problem, how much will an engineering department at a university be willing to shell out for such a project. What would it possibly gain such a department considering they are far more eager for real work in the high tech industry?
I don't think Ed appreciates the dynamics of the research industry that would be qualified to critique major areas of evolutionary biology. They simply have far more lucrative opportunities than to be bothered by things like Avida….
One only needs to compare the top information science executive (Bill Gates) to a top evolutionary biologist (Richard Dawkins) to get an idea of where the lucrative areas are for information engineers.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 2, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
You didn't misinterpret me, I just wanted to make it more clear what I was and was not saying.
I don't really have any problems with Avida, per se. My problems are with some of the conclusions that people like Pennock have drawn from it. They simply don't follow. I think that some of the conclusions that Dave Thomas drew from his GA experiment at PT in the middle of 2006 were confused too. If and when I get around to writing a post about this subject, I'll probably focus on those two.
Comment by macht — January 2, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
macht wrote:
I think Macht is right. I remember being in "biology school" years ago studying for a career in an applied medical science. We knew who the real scientists were. They were our professors and fellow students who planned to become research scientists. The rest of us were studying enough biology to make good enough grades to get into our respective medical schools-future physicians, dentists, pharmacists, etc. We did not learn to be scientists or know how to do hands on scientific method. We memorized facts, were accepted in our schools, and then learned the practice our of trade. We certainly did not immerse ourselves in the field of knowledge called evolutionary biology such that we were able to appreciate the intricate inferences made there. In short, we were and are just as much laypersons in reference to having an educated opinion about evolution as accountant, lawyers, plumbers, etc. The foregoing also applies to physicians. They haven't paid the price of admission anymore than the rest of us. If you want a good and educated opinion about evolution, go to an evolutionary biologist. If you want to get over the flu, go to a physician. If you want absolution, go to a priest.
Comment by bj — January 3, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
bj,
I can appreciate your sentiments as it does seem that many people outside of evolutionary biology feel qualified to sternly criticize the discipline. In truth, this discipline has seemed especially unique in its ability to attract very harsh criticism from outsiders. It's been rare that I seen that level in regards to physics, chemistry, and engineering.
I have to maintain however, when some of their cliams begin to wander into domains of expertise outside of their field and into the fields of math, information science, etc., the criticism is inevitable. The Wistar 1966 conference was a legendary case in point with Eden and Shutzenberger and others lining up on one side and the evolutionary biologists on the other. The turf wars have continued to this day….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 3, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
By the way, Shutzenberger was a Physician and world class computer engineer/scientist. He is hauntingly representative of exactly the communities where fierce criticism of evolutionary biology emerge even today.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 3, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Salvador,
I knew that my comment would need and get a bit of modification. I just wanted to make the main point that those of us in applied medical sciences really aren't scientists. We are highly educated, bodily tradespersons. But, folks will give physicians' opinions about evolution greater weight than they should, because they are a kind of god in our culture.
Further, I do believe that rational individuals do have the capacity to understand when a scientist has gone afield as you mention. Especially, when a scientist is taking the facts of science hard won thru experimentation and then starts using those facts to do metaphysics. It's not all that hard to differentiate between the two. That is what creates the needed and justifiable pushback. Dawkins and Myers fall into this camp and deserve everything they get in opposition. I have long held that their activities are harming the "pure" practice of science.
Comment by bj — January 3, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hi Salvador,
I have never been very impressed with Shützenberger's critique. Like in this interview, where he makes the flawed assumption that a gene only contains a single bit of information:
Comment by Krauze — January 3, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
bj:
I got involved in this 'culture war' when a science groupie spouted some total metaphysical claptrap in a news forum, pretending it was 'Science'. I'd never thought much about the Creationism vs. Darwinism tussle because it seemed from a distance to be just the usual Dueling Metaphysics (with the definite edge to the science). Suddenly I became aware of some highly corrupt 'science' being spewed in public for all the wrong reasons, and it made me take a much closer look at what was going on.
See, religions aren't threatened by science at all. People will choose to believe in that which best serves their psyche, interests and abilities wherever they are stationed in life, and nothing Dawkins or Harris or PZ say will make any difference. But a corruption of science will do real damage to everyone, if only because modern life is so science-dependent.
I keep waiting for science proper to wake up and start applying some naval jelly to the rust that threatens its foundation. The closest anybody's come in all the years I've been watching is this recent Post-Wedge shift to straight metaphysics that has so divided the self-appointed guardians of NDS dogma. I thank Dawkins for that, and I for one hope he keeps it up long enough to cause real concern from all fields and practitioners.
What will be will be, but we all have favorites in the struggle.
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
bj,
Macht is not wrong. He merely missed the innuendo of Ed's response. If Ed had said that the average Joe is not qualified to submit a paper to Cell on the proteasome in stem cell pluripotency, then I would agree with him.
But this is not what Ed is driving at. Ed thinks that the general population is not even qualified to comment on evolution because they lack some "necessary knowledge". This begs the question -
What is this "necessary knowledge"
Is neodarwinism only understandable by a few elite scientists? Is the secret of evolution so intensely complex that it cannot be disseminated in some understandable form to the layperson? If 'RM + NS = BIODIVERSITY' is the pithy solution that the ivory tower has to offer, then Salvador is correct to assert that the general population rejects neodarwinism on scientific merit. The decree from the ivory tower is vacuous.
I question the neodarwinian paradigm because of what isn't being said by the ivory tower. I was barely content to trust them when I was a youngster and they told me that RM + NS = BIODIVERSITY. Now that I am an adult, I have approached the ivory tower repeatedly to ask for clarification, and maybe some detail about how the equation works in reality. But the details are not forthcoming.
I don't mind being told I'm not knowledgable to judge a scientific study. But my judgement of the neodarwinian paradigm stems not from what I think I know better than some scientist. My judgement arises from the ivory tower's inability to articulate the most basic defense of it's assumed mechanism. Because of this, I like the general population become more convinced every day that the emperor has no clothes.
Ed attempts to cast the blame for this on the public's lack of understanding. I assert that the ivory tower has failed to make it's case and therefore is open to judgement. I'll reserve my right to judge whether Ed thinks I should or not.
Comment by chunkdz — January 3, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Hi Krauze,
I am not well-versed to anything near the extent required to exchange ideas intelligently with you on these matters, and I had never even heard of Shützenberger until just now, following your link.
But based on that very interesting interview I would suggest that your reading of him here is uncharitable.
As Shützenberger also likens a gene to a word, it is obvious that he is not saying, as you apply to him, that a gene contains only one bit of information.
He seems to me to be discussing the gene as an instruction, and as such it may contain, or require for its existence, very many bits of information.
In the schematic for the eye that word, or instruction, represents only one bit of information, but does not necessarily contain one bit.
His critique appears to be that the eye cannot be assembled and utilized on the basis of a few thousand instructions.
As the central dogma gives way to such things as emergence, self-organization, and evo-devo perhaps this critique is not as salient as it may have once been, but it would appear nonetheless accurate.
Comment by Pez — January 3, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Exactly. Two people who have debated Michael Behe and William Dembski were my professors. One was, Robert Ehrlich (his debate with Behe mentioned here) and James Trefil (his debate with Dembski mentioned: here).
I recall how much I and other students enjoyed going to their classes. Trefil was especially popular, even after exams were over, he had a special session (not for grade or credit) where students could ask him any question. The classroom was packed out….
They would discuss a scientific hypothesis and then describe the experiments that affirmed or refuted various hypothesis. It was riveting sometimes to see the ingenuity of the experiments and calculations especially those pertaining to atomic theory….
The irony is that the kind of rigorous scientific argumentation that I saw in Ehrlich and Trefil's physics classes I do not see in evolutionary theory (with the very notable exception of population genetics). What is also ironic is why were PHYSICS professors from GMU the ones debating the ID proponents? Why not BIOLOGY professors?
Too often when the ivory tower elitists have an opportunity for an audience, people outside the field make the defense. Sometimes they don't even show up at all like in May of 2005 in Kansas.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — January 3, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Joy, you wrote:
Thanks for this comment as it reflects exactly why I am interested in these matters. It's strange, I am an agnostic, but it seems I have more confidence in the durability of religion than some of the religionists in these metaphysic wars. To state it simply, humankind needs the deep touch of religion far more than it needs the latest version of IPOD, or even the greater detail of the current MRI technology.
I hope the scientific community can do the necessary housecleaning. We shall see, but thanks to Dawkins in, at least, moving things along.
Comment by bj — January 3, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
chunkdz, you wrote:
This whole debate is quite messy in that so many variables are enmeshed. I am just a layman in these matters, an applied medical professional. I have already denigrated my own credentials to judge such matters. That was the main point of my earlier post. But, my current belief from such a position, is that the "fact" of evolution (common descent) is reasonable. And yes, I do believe that being on the "inside" and dealing with the subtle relationships involved puts one in a better position to render judgment on the common descent inference. I do trust evolutionary biologists on this. More important, I think this judgement can be made apart from having full knowledge of mechanism.
But, your point about mechanism and your personal experience is well-taken. This is where it's gets messy and metaphysics can muddy the waters. There is so much more to be learned about how organisms create, induce or just experience variation by chance. So, if you want to criticize the RM + NS = Biodiversity paradigm, no problem here. But, as I said earlier, I don't think we have to understand how it happened to have a reasonable belief that it did happen. I don't know if this point is presented as much as it should be.
Comment by bj — January 3, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
January 3rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Hi Pez,
I see your point, but I don't think it helps Shützenberger's argument. Let's distinguish between information, which is the informational content of a gene, and exformation, which is the informational content of its effect. According to your reading, Shützenberger is merely saying that the exformation of a gene is 1 bit, whatever its information. But why should we assume that?
The claim that a gene has "binary properties" is a red herring. Suppose that a firms sends a factory 2,000 files to be used in constructing some new device. Even though one can describe the files as having "binary properties" (either the factory uses them or they don't), this doesn't mean that the factory has only been sent the equivalent of "a single paragraph of text."
Comment by Krauze — January 3, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Well said. I do not acept Darwinian evolution because frankly I do not see the complelling evidence the Darwinist put forth. Furthermore the sleight of hand employed by Darwinists I find to be logically flawed. I am always leery of those who employ the tactic that "I just do not understand Darwinian evolution". Frankly I do not understand quantum physics but I accept it. I dont understand singularities but I embrace the 'big bang". I do not need to be an expert to understand scientific concepts at least at the level neccessary to make a judgement on their merits. I am ceratinaly not going to accept Darwinism based on the "ex cathreda" pronouncements of the Darwinist priesthood.
This idea that Darwinian evolution is to hard for the layman to make a sound judgement therefore we need to defer to the experts is absurd. Perhaps the problem is that the theory is so flawed that a coherent articulation is not possible. All types of excuses are given for those who do not accept the Darwinian paradigm. Dawkins choices are we are stupid or evil.
I do think that a large part of this "conscious raising" nonsense is rooted in this arrogance that people are not capable of understanding the theory and some reject it for religious purposes. There is anger on the Darwinists side because they do not have a fair crack at the children of religious parents before they get "indoctrinated" in religion. Surely they believe if only we had "open" minds without religious pollution Darwinism would make all the sense in the world. It is not their theory that is the problem it is ignorance or religious bias.
All this is cloaked in terms where all the Darwinists want is the opportunity to present what is factual without having the facts being short circuited by faith. It is the 'fact faith" dichotomy probably best articulated in "Rock of Ages" What can be empericaly demonstrated is fact and everything else is faith, actually not faith rather fideism. One is rational and the other is irrational. One is based on reason the other on non reason. Why should we allow parents to indoctrinate their children in irrationality? This is the mindset of Dawkins and his ilk.
I would not be the least surprised if 50 years from now Dawkins and PZ will get their wish. How does one argue that someone should be allowed to teach their children irrational things? Of course if faith is fideism then that is what we are doing but faith is not fideism regardless of what Webster says. Fidesim mey be irrational but faith is not, fideism is not based on reason but faith is. One of the things theists need to do is not allow others to redefine the historical definition of faith to fideism.
Of course the Darwinists are not upset over indoctrination because God knows our children are being indoctrinated every day by our public school system. This offense taken by some over religious indoctrination is laughable to anyone who has children in our public schools.
As one who has followed the disputes over the years surrounding Darwinan evolution it is crystal clear that this is a religious war. I personally agree with the person that said that "Darwinism is metaphysics disguised as science" This is a war between theism and atheism, materialism verses non materialism, one metaphysic pitted against another. Once one understands this one understands the vitriol aimed at those who do not accept Darwinian evolution.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — January 4, 2007 @ 12:36 am
January 4th, 2007 at 3:57 am
I had to laugh while reading the interview with Marcel Schützenberger. I had known that he and David Berlinski were friends, but until now I hadn't realized how much alike they were. The bombast, the mixed metaphors, the prolixity…
Whether you like Berlinski or not, you have to admit that Schützenberger sounds just like him:
Comment by keiths — January 4, 2007 @ 3:57 am
January 4th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Joy wrote:
Some are, some aren't. The Dalai Lama has famously said that when Buddhism comes into conflict with the findings of science, Buddhism must yield. On the other hand, Answers in Genesis is threatened enough by modern science to spend 25 million dollars on a museum full of saddled dinosaurs and Adam-and-Eve tableaux.
When tens of millions of Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that humans were separately created by God, simply because their Holy Scriptures say so, they are bound to feel threatened when science tells them that no, they're off by a factor of a million, and that the idea of separate creation is a myth.
Dover would never have happened if members of the school board hadn't felt that their religion was being threatened by the teaching of evolution.
Many people are not content to believe something that merely fits. They want it to be true as well. Because of science's reputation as the preeminent tool for uncovering truths, these people get very nervous when science is at odds with their beliefs.
At least we can agree on that.
Comment by keiths — January 4, 2007 @ 4:31 am
January 4th, 2007 at 11:00 am
keiths:
Sure, there is Creationist resistance and reaction to the challenges of science to literalist ideology. But it's a mistake to believe that so many Americans (nearly half) believe the world is 10K or less years old for particularly dogmatic reasons, since most of those believers took the required indoctrination in NDS in high school - and passed the course. They report to pollsters that this is what they believe because it's what they choose to believe over the NDS pablum they were indoctrinated with in high school.
This means they really don't feel so "threatened" by NDS, they just choose not to believe-in it - a simple matter of personal and social priorities for the individual. There's nothing you can do about that, but it's a mystery to me why no scientists and/or sociologists have bothered to analyze that objectively instead of just take to the public media to call them all morons. Bad tactics.
It's also a mistake to confuse the concepts of perceived "threat" and intentional "proselytization." There are two distinct parties to the politicization of public school science classrooms. In such a situation each camp blames the other while completely absolving themselves. Dover tried to institute its policy officially, and was called to account.
Then you should expect NDS indoctrination of high school students to successfully convert many people to your metaphysical belief system. I won't bother explaining the difference between best-guess theory (or scientific 'orthodoxy') and "truth." I have found that those who confuse theory with truth have as much of an emotional investment of faith in materialist metaphysics as religious people have in their metaphysics.
This is the corruption of science that concerns me.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2007 @ 11:00 am
January 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Hi Keiths,
Regarding religion's durability. Certainly, some religious folks are threatened by science. But, the point some of us are making is more general. We are speaking of religion's place in the life of humanity, and it's ability to integrate the discoveries of science in most creative ways. Some think that evolution will only be embraced within the context of more liberal Protestant thought, but I suspect as time goes by, and the fact of evolution becomes harder and harder to deny, that the literalist-inerrant scripture evangelicals will simply create their own new interpretations of scripture which will allow for evolution. It will, of course, be God-directed evolution, but evolution, nonetheless. This has already happened in finding great amounts of time in Genesis 1 via the day-age theory in order to accomodate the findings of science regarding the age of the earth.
Look out 25, 50 or 100 years. Think of just how much science will discovery in that time. If you think that these discoveries will make the fact of evolution undeniable, I suspect you are correct. But, don't think that will weaken religion. Religion, even evangelical religion, may have a few fits and starts, but it will integrate that truth and carry on with strength. How do I know this? Evolutionary history has demonstrated this time and time again. Man's evolutionary journey has taught me this. I do not suspect that this is particularly good news to the evangelical atheist community.
A closing point, to assume that this is irrational behavior would be a mistake.
Comment by bj — January 4, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
bj:
Well, the EAs are intent upon disallowing any and all interpretations of biological science that reserve an appeal to divine activity, or even leave room for the presence of telic processes in nature. There is already a Church of Evolution, complete with rituals, prayers, rosary, children's stories, etc. There are plenty of Theistic Evolutionists too, whom Dawkins and PZ et al. regularly lambast as traitors to science. Then there are the many individual religious believers (of all kinds) who simply don't see that evolution challenges their faith at all, and aren't particularly interested in what Dawkins and PZ think about their faith.
The corruption of science is the insistence on an exclusive, 'orthodox' interpretation that comes as 'dogma' passed down from on high just like religious dogma. This is why we are told so often by EAs that no one besides them is qualified to interpret the science to metaphysical worldviews - that we must all be forced to accept the orthodox dogma's metaphysical implications as they have interpreted these to support metaphysical materialism, a.k.a. atheism.
When any branch of science establishes a transient theoretic as Absolute Metaphysical Truth for all humanity for all time, science becomes just another religion and loses its value. The public purse gets drawn a little tighter in reaction, and can be withdrawn by political will at any point. When this reaction begins, we start seeing the in-science persecution of 'heretics', the attempt to legislate coercive measures as an end-run around public appropriations, and massive PR campaigns full of hyperbolic hate-speech designed by authoritarians to steal the minds and hearts of other people's children to aggrandize themselves.
We're already there. And science proper isn't doing a damned thing to save itself. As ever, that's a very big shame. But they've no one to blame but themselves.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Hi Joy,
I just did not realize that this was happening, but I haven't looked at this much in a few decades. But, I have a family studying biology at the graduate level so I familiarized myself with scientific academia of late. As I said, I am not concerned for religion. It can take care of itself. I have two issues. One is the health of science. The other is the need for we, Americans, to stop being so terribly judgmental of each other. It's gotten to the point where demonization is the common theme when dealing with people whose opinions differ from our own. In that kind of world, further diversity means further division and hostility in our common life. It's terribly healthy. So, I fault the true believers of any kind who think they have the right from God or whoever to demean their countryman.
Comment by bj — January 4, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I've seen it before, bj. Luckily, it so far hasn't gotten to the point where there's actual societal purges and 're-education camps'. Back in the early years of the space program, the "heretics" were convinced by nearly 40 years' worth of accumulated evidence that the universe had a singular beginning in time.
Scientific tradition had long considered the universe to be basically 'eternal', so the Steady State was formulated as 'orthodoxy' to do grand battle against the Big Bangers. It was a long and decidedly nasty war with significant losses of brains and talent along the way to the very same sort of persecution tactics we see today in the fields of evolutionary biology. A lot of brilliant scientists gave up and drove ski shuttle buses or tended bar rather than bow to the priesthood of 'orthodox' turf-warriors.
…who argued in the end to keep it 'secret' - even after the evidence demonstrated BB to be provisionally 'true' - because if the universe had a beginning in time, it would lend support to theistic metaphysics. The final death blow was delivered in '65. As soon as the new science books were delivered, the universe had a beginning and it was presented (as SS had been the year before) as if that's the way it's always been. Kids were not taught about the 30+ year struggle against 'orthodoxy', or why some scientists didn't want it taught even when the evidence supported it.
In biology, Mendel's work - which he had sent to Charles Darwin after "Origin…" was published - was pointedly ignored for more than 75 years until mounting evidence of reliable particulate inheritance simply could not be ignored any longer. At that point the Neodarwinian Synthesis was born (*as* 'orthodoxy' from the beginning) with the strictly imposed qualifier that any changes in the physical mechanisms of reliable particulate inheritance had to be "random" in all cases.
Why? Because telic processes in nature, actual design in life, etc. are fearsome. Like BB, teleology might lend support to theistic metaphysics. So this turf war has been ongoing for longer than Richard Dawkins has been alive and will survive his death. It's never really been about 'truth' (big-T or little). It's just dueling metaphysics.
Like the "New Atheism" we see promoted by Dawkins et al., there is also a "New Eugenics" being promoted by many of the same people. There's several blogs in the TT archives under that heading. Society can shut it down if it turns coercive, as such bad ideas so often do. It's a dirty job to keep 'em honest, but somebody's got to do it… §;o)
The hyperbolic loudmouths are loud, but most people aren't interested in demonizing those who look or think or believe differently than they do. If there's demons out there, they usually manage to identify themselves. When they identify themselves *as* science, science is what suffers in the public perception.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Well Joy,
I do stand more informed about these matters.
By the way, I made a few errors in my previous post. Can anyone guide me on how to edit after the fact?
Comment by bj — January 4, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Hi BJ,
Clicking on "Edit This" should allow you to edit your common up to 30 minutes after it has been posted.
Comment by Krauze — January 4, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
January 4th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Thanks Krauze,
I had never noticed this. Right in front of my eyes.
Comment by bj — January 4, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Good. So you concede, contrary to your earlier assertion, that some religions are threatened by science.
Not really. That assumes that students are fully open to ideas that challenge their strongly-held preconceptions. It also assumes that schools do a good job of teaching evolution. Neither is true, in my experience.
Good, because I'm fully aware of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge.
Any evidence for your assertion?
Now that's fascinating — especially the part about scientists arguing to keep the evidence secret. Could you point me to your source for this information? I'd love to read about it.
Comment by keiths — January 5, 2007 @ 3:44 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I had to laugh while reading the interview with Marcel Schützenberger. I had known that he and David Berlinski were friends, but until now I hadn't realized how much alike they were. The bombast, the mixed metaphors, the prolixity"¦
There are few minds with greater analytic insight than Berlinski's. It becomes bombast when… let me guess. He states something you disagree with. Right?
Comment by Bradford — January 5, 2007 @ 11:06 am
January 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Joy wrote:
Joy,
Perhaps a bit of introspection is in order:
Comment by keiths — January 5, 2007 @ 11:36 am
January 5th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Bradford wrote:
Not at all.
Here is a paragraph of Berlinski's that I mostly agree with, but find painfully bombastic:
Here's another nice example of Berlinski's prose style:
Comment by keiths — January 5, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
LOL!!! Oh, I don't deny being a hyperbolic loudmouth, keiths. I'm known for it. But what I don't pretend is that I'm the anointed professor for the public understanding of science, busy demonizing those I'm supposed to be educating.
Dawkins doesn't need me to educate him about why demonization won't work. He's smart enough to figure that out for himself if he cared to. I'm just a mirror held up by his demonized targets to illustrate why it won't work.
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
January 5th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Keiths, if you don't like the style why not label it verbose or overdone? Why pompous?
bom·bast (bmbst) KEY
NOUN:
Grandiloquent, pompous speech or writing.
Comment by Bradford — January 5, 2007 @ 12:30 pm