What do the Wedge and the dodo have in common?
by KrauzeAllen MacNeill has an update on the "Evolution and Design" course he's teaching at Cornell University. He and his students have evaluated some of the most popular books on the topic, and have found that both books supporting and critical of intelligent design suffer with problems in arguing rationally for their claims. But here is something that really caught my attention:
Johnson/The Wedge of Truth: To my surprise, both the ID supporters and critics in the class almost immediately agreed that Johnson's book was simply a polemic, with no real intellectual (and certainly no scientific) merit. His resort to ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, and the drawing of spurious connections via arguments by analogy were universally agreed to be "outside the bounds of this course" (and to exceed in some cases Dawkins' use of similar tactics), and we simply dropped any further consideration of it as unproductive. Indeed, one ID supporter stated quite clearly that "this book isn't ID", and that the kinds of assertions and polemics that Johnson makes could damage the credibility of ID as a scientific enterprise in the long run.
This is interesting, since many ID critics are heavily invested in the notion of Phillip Johnson as some mastermind, whose "Wedge document" reveal the true nature of intelligent design. But if MacNeill's experience can be extrapolated to other young ID supporters (always a dangerous assumption), we have quite a different picture: A new generation of ID supporters, who have no brief for polemics about cultural reform, and who are just interested in seeing intelligent design succeed as a "scientific enterprise".
How is this going to play out in the post-wedge world? If ID critics continue to cling to their rhetoric about ID supporters as closeted theocrats out to destroy science and democracy, they are only blowing their credibility with an ID-friendly audience. Think about it: Who is the biggest expert on Joe Q. Teleologist's motivations and beliefs? Why, it's Joe Q. Teleologist. So when groups like the NCSE and the Panda's Thumb accuse him of things he knows are wrong, Joe will probably react by no longer taking those groups seriously. If he can't trust the critics on something he's intimately familiar with, why should he trust them on something he is unfamiliar with, such as the origin of life or the bacterial flagellum?
Some of us have already gotten used to living in the post-wedge world. For those youngsters just joining us, here's a hearty welcome from me and all the other Telicians. The future's going to be a fun ride!
July 30th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Krauze:
LOL.
Here's what "Joe Q Teleologist", specifically leading ID theorist and advocate Dr. John Calvert, says about things: (from this discussion)
Got news fer ya, Krauze. It's not the critics who are pointing out the fact that, at its core, teleology is all about religion. Leading ID proponents themselves, people like Dr. John Calvert, are informing the rest of us that teleology is all about religion, and specifically about the "right" vs. the "wrong" religion.
You seem to have missed the memo from the cathedral. Better dig it out "“ religious types can get pretty ornery when it comes to minions who aren't falling in line.
And while we're on the subject of, um, being informed, if we are going to demand that purveyors of opinion actually be informed about the subjects they are babbling on about, then the ID movement (including the acolytes here at TT) would have to close up shop.
Here's what Dembski, the leading ID theorist of the age, the intellectual giant of the movement, knows about the field of evolution, and specifically about those who do research in the area:
That, ladies and gentlemen, says it all about the, um, intellectual "prowess" of the ID and teleology movement.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 10:46 am
July 30th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Speaking of missed memos, Krauze, you apparently didn't read the one that is guiding the teleologists of Georgetown, Delaware.
Krauze:
Oh, wait, I get it. In the PWW, the teleologists are coming out of the closet. Although, to be honest, I'm not sure why teleologists are getting so bent out of shape about being called "closeted". This doesn't seem to be that big an issue.
Ooooh, oooh, wait again. I get it. Again. "Closeted" means "not able to proseltzye with full government sanction".
Y'all are so durned subtle.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 11:38 am
July 30th, 2006 at 11:55 am
"Got news fer ya, Krauze. It's not the critics who are pointing out the fact that, at its core, teleology is all about religion. Leading ID proponents themselves, people like Dr. John Calvert, are informing the rest of us that teleology is all about religion, and specifically about the "right" vs. the "wrong" religion."
Got news fer ya, Art. Religious beliefs and advocacy of evolution have been linked since Huxley, Haldane and Sagan and continue today with Dawkins and quite a few others. How is it that evolutionists ignore the religious remarks as long as such views are anti-Christian or atheist. How do those sentiments have a bearing on scientific evidence for life's origins. Since you'd like to "demand that purveyors of opinion actually be informed" then kindly inform us of scientific evidence showing that life resulted from a series of organic chemical reactions. If you could it would say something about the intellectual prowess of philosophical naturalism.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 11:55 am
July 30th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Hi Krauze,
Did you notice that in Art's reply to you, he complains about John Calvert, William Dembski, and some people in Georgetown, Delaware, instead of you. Since he is unable to deal with your points, his mind, guided by his stereotypes, actively seeks out proxies to substitute for you.
Further evidence of his confirmation bias comes from a simple fact about Georgetown, Delaware that Art conveniently shielded "“ it has a whopping population of 4,643. Wow. 4,643! If Art's mind is actively seeking out confirmation for his conspiracy theory about a Coming Theocracy, I suppose there is a decent chance, especially with the new technology of the Internet, that he'll be able to cherry pick a community of 4,643 people, out of a larger population of 300 million, that will support that conspiracy theory. This is especially true if expression of religion in the public square has long been part of the population's history.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Let me just clarify that the "wedge document" and "The Wedge of Truth" are two separate works. The first is a "leaked" ducument that has been wielded like a club by many non-IDers, and the second is a book publicly available at Amazon.com.
I have not read "The Wedge of Truth", but I understand that it is a sociological work, not a biological work. Johnson, it seems, is suggesting that our teleological view of biology makes a real difference in our life.
Art:
Art, cut the symplistic sarcasm!
One's teleological perspective re biology affects one's perspective reguarding religion. Thinking people know this. No one of any influence in the ID movement says otherwise. This is the foundation of Johnson,s "The Wedge of Truth". Let me say it again, One's teleological perspective re biology affects one's perspective reguarding religion. The rub is this, both a teleological and an ateleological view affect one's perspective reguarding religion. Therefore a nonteleological view also has religious implications!
Now, when folks in the ID movement says that it is not religiously motivated they mean two things (either one or both at any one time):
First, they mean that the ID movement does not look in some book (spelled BIBLE) to find out the game plan of the designer, then go into the literature to find support for this game plan. (This, of course, is exactly what the YEC movement does do.)
Second, though a teleological view will lead people down a path that has religous doors on it, as described by Dr. John Calvert, the path does not lead to just one door. Nor, by the way, does it have any pathways to any doors that are straight and clear of obsticles. The current ID movement and Christian theology are not all that good of a fit.
Now, in case you missed it, let's review. One's view of teleology in biology, whether positive or negative, will affect one's view of religion. When one believes that they have gnostic knowledge because of their religioius perspective, and when one seeks to prove their religion right by carefully selecting which biology they care about, then they have the proverbial cart before the horse. ID, for the most part, does not commit this offence.
Now I'm off to church.
Oh, by the way, I very much understand what Dembski is talking about when he talks of Gould as "the only evolutionist who ever tried to answer questions about evolution." I have become very fond of Gould, he clearly was a thinker who would honestly and readily admit the weaknesses of the theory that he espoused. My understanding was that he created quite a stir in the evolutionary community when he observed the gaps in the fossil record. This, of course, led to his theory of punctuated equilibrium. However, I understand that he gave direct assent to the "hopeful moster" theory as well.
Gould, if I understand, said that if there was too much evidence of DNA segments coding for multiple proteins, that it would be the death nel to the theory. My understanding is that since Gould's death, it has become apparent that each segment of coding DNA codes for an average of 5 separate proteins. I wonder if Gould, an honest thinking man, would still be an evolutionist, or if he would have jumped camps and become an IDer.
Comment by bFast — July 30, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
So, Krauze is "Joe Q. Teleologist", but Dr. John Calvert isn't? Who gets to make these decisions? Is there a committee? Is it a democratic one? Who gets to vote? (I get the feeling we're probing deep into the inner workings of some secret ritual here. )
And how many "teleologists" are there in the USA? 300 million? or 5,000? 4363 is a pretty big slice of the latter pie. (Although, frankly, I'm not sure how this would be calculated in the PWW. Teleologists don't toe the "materialistic" math line, and I'm sure there's is some new theorem that actually turns this ratio into some ungodly - ooops, did I say that - small value.)
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Art:
Your confusion comes from your quote-mining approach. Krauze clearly set up the context in the previous paragraph that you omitted:
Art then asks:
Perhaps you can clarify why you chose to insert the Georgetown link in this thread. Why was it supposed to be relevant?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Sometimes, a reply is so off-base that you just don't know what to reply. In my post, I commented on Allen MacNeill's "Evolution and Design" course, in which even the pro-ID students don't seem to have much brief for polemics about cultural reform, even if it's by Phillip Johnson, the "father of the ID movement". So how does Art respond? By quoting "leading ID proponents" talking about cultural reform and telling me how important "falling in line" is in "the cathedral". "In ya' face, Krauze!"
Well, you got me there, Art. I truly don't know what to reply.
Comment by Krauze — July 30, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
So, what is the better extrapolation to "Joe Q Teleologist" at large - the opinions of a handful (less than ten, in all likelihood!) of Ivy Leaguer summer seminar students, or a very prominent ID advocate who speaks to roomfuls of "amens" (every "amen" of which is a refutation of the extrapolation Krauze is trying to make), or a townful of teleologists who seem to want their own brand of "teleology" imposed on everyone?
Does anyone here think the "Joe Q Teleologists" of Hardesty, Oklahoma, in their quest to purge their idyllic conclave of atheists, would care two whits about the high-fallutin' opinions of a few uppity Yankee Ivy Leaguers? Is it the members of MacNeill's course who are the true face and soul of the teleological "movement" (as it were) in this country? Or is it the rooms full of "amens" who support Calvert's efforts to direct, by governmental fiat, innocent schoolchildren through the "right doors"
Off-base? I think not. I'm just pointing out the baselessness of Krauze's musings.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
"So, what is the better extrapolation to "Joe Q Teleologist" at large - the opinions of a handful (less than ten, in all likelihood!) of Ivy Leaguer summer seminar students, or a very prominent ID advocate who speaks to roomfuls of "amens" (every "amen" of which is a refutation of the extrapolation Krauze is trying to make), or a townful of teleologists who seem to want their own brand of "teleology" imposed on everyone?"
Art is exposing the fear mongering tactic to full view. In reality noone is imposing any views on Art. If there is intimidation it comes from evolutionists who advance non-scientific fear tactics to discount ID.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I haven't read Johnson's 'The Wedge of Truth,' so, of course, I am unable to comment directly upon whether it is indeed "simply a polemic, with no real intellectual (and certainly no scientific) merit" or on whether in the book Johnson does indeed "resort to ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, and the drawing of spurious connections via arguments by analogy."
I've read some of Johnson's essays and the text of a speech or two, though I've read none of his books. In the small bit of his writing I have read, I don't recall that he "resort[s] to ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, and the drawing of spurious connections via arguments by analogy." Certainly, he is often "polemical" But so what? The important question is not: "Do his opponents object to his skewering of their claims?" The important question is: "Is what he says true, or at least logical?"
However, I can comment upon the quotation of Allen MacNeill (after all, I've read it).
"both the ID supporters and critics in the class almost immediately agreed that Johnson's book was simply a polemic, with no real intellectual … merit"
And your point is? I mean, you do intend a point containing "real intellectual … merit" in this, don't you? I mean, you do mean something with a bit more intellectual heft then spurious connections drawn on emotive "reasoning," don't you?
Because, if you do, I cannot see it. All I see is an emotive non sequitur that runs something like this: "Johnson's book is a polemic, therefore it has 'no real intellectual (and certainly no scientific) merit'." This, of course, does not follow.
Aside from being an emotive non-argument, this dismissal of Johnson on the grounds of his "polemical" nature is also embarrassingly childish: "Johnsosn is such a meanie regarding the intellectual pretentions of his opponents! He not only insists that their claims are false, but also aggressively goes about showing their claims to be false!"
Certainly, Johnson is often "polemical" But so what? The important question is not: "Do his opponents object to his skewering of their claims?" The important question is: "Is what he says true, or at least logical?"
"simply a polemic, with no real intellectual (and certainly no scientific) merit"
"Scientific merit?!"
Come now! You teach your students the erroneous meme that "nothing in 'science' is ever proved or disproved." I predict that ten years from now you'll still be asserting this easily-seen-to-be-false claim as Absolute Truth. So, if it were indeed true that "nothing in 'science' is ever proved or disproved," then what does "science" have to do with "merit" of any sort, much less "intellectual merit?"
But, even getting past the false assertion that "nothing in 'science' is ever proved or disproved," even getting to the point of understanding that the whole point of "doing science" is to prove things, it remains a flaw of reasoning to impute to 'science' the "merit" of adjudicating truth-claims. The fact is: 'science' (the real thing, not that goddess that Defenders of Science worship) doesn't "know" truth from false.
In other words, the phrase "scientific merit" is meaningless: it's certainly an emotive phrase, yet, oddly enough, intellectually vacuous.
"Indeed, one ID supporter stated quite clearly that "this book isn't ID", and that the kinds of assertions and polemics that Johnson makes could damage the credibility of ID as a scientific enterprise in the long run."
"Scientific credibility" is another emotive, yet vacuous, phrase.
Anyone who will discount another's argument(s) because the other makes assertions is not a serious person and is lacking in some very basic understanding concerning the nature of intellectual activities.
Anyone who will discount another's argument(s) merelybecause the other argues in a polemical style is not a serious person and is not serious about engaging the debate (whatever the debate happens to be).
Now, even were it true that Johnson does indeed "resort to ad hominem arguments, guilt by association, and the drawing of spurious connections via arguments by analogy," anyone who would discount ID for that reason is not a serious person and is merely looking for an excuse to discount ID.
Would it be intellectually honest for one to discount 'modern evolutionary theory' due to Dawkins or Dennett? Of course not. Would it be intellectually honest for one to discount 'modern evolutionary theory' merely because he has yet to encounter a 'modern evolutionary theorist' who is able (or willing) to objectively examine the assertions of 'modern evolutionary theory?' Of course not.
There are many valid reasons to discount/reject 'modern evolutionary theory,' but the observed behavior of 'modern evolutionary theorists' is not one of those reasons. Likewise, if there are valid reasons to discount/reject ID, the observed behavior of IDists will not be one of those reasons.
Comment by Ilion — July 30, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
LOL! Hardesty, Oklahoma - population 277.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Art:
Hmmm… are you attempting to claim there is no such thing as teleology in the natural world? Or are you just saying that Neodarwinism was designed to be a synthetic support for atheism, so of course must deny the existence of teleology in the natural world?
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
When teleologists acquire the power to decide which is the correct door.
Of course, when we transform things to logs, then we're only looking at a population of fewer than 8 LOL. Just 5-6 more than Hardesty.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
In my experience it's even less ambitious than that. They are merely curious to know if there is evidence of design in nature. Whether it gets incorporated into a research program is less of an issue than whether it's reasonable.
As long as they feel there is hope for ID being true, they are comforted knowing life probably isn't pointless afterall.
If anything, I'm disappointed at the apathy toward cultural reform (reform as in eradicating naturalism out of academia). The students of today, like me years ago, feel not much can be done if people like PZ Myers are in charge of universities. The students rather opt to abandon a sinking ship than work to keep it afloat. And I can't really blame them. The talented science students will go in to industry or medicine where more money can be made and where one is freed of the politics of universities. It is the members of industry where I think cultural reform can be made in the private lives of practicing professionals.
Thus I see the spread of ID being grass roots, with the public schools being the last (if ever) of the institutions to teach it. I would however be glad that it gets offered as an elective somewhere in the universities in the meantime, maybe in special topics classes, or philosophy and religion classes. Science classes would be my first choice, but I don't see that happenning any time soon.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 30, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Art's Hardesty link ironically undercuts his fear. As he searches for "evidence" to justify his own sense of fear about a Coming Theocracy, he finds a little dispute in a town of less than 300 people (it has only one full-time police officer). They move the trial to a nearby sprawling metropolis of 10,000 people, where a Christian and Atheist lawyer have no trouble getting a jury full of Christians to unanimously rule in favor of the Atheists.
Oh, the Terror of Theocracy.
Okay, so Art's search for the Terror of Theocracy runs out of little American towns and what does he do next in his quest for confirmation? He goes to India to find a law against people converting to the Christian religion.
Art, are you really blind to the fact that you are engaged in confirmation bias?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
You folks who think we are in (or should be in) a post-Wedge World are simply not credible when you refuse to take a forthright stand on issues like Kansas. Do you support the science standards or not? Does the "Intelligent Design Network" represent ID, or not? Why shouldn't the scientific community quite legitimately base their opinion of ID on the actions of the Discovery Institute and the ID Network? Why should any scientists take seriously your mewing about the "Post-Wedge World" when the sociopolitical aspect of ID is 99%+ of the movement, and will be for the foreseeable future regardless of what happens in the Kansas elections?
I googled the Telic Thoughts blog on "Kansas Science Standards" (but not in quotes on the search), the major hits I got were (a) me asking you guys about your position on the Kansas Science Standards, and (b) you guys chortling over PT's confusion about the Mirecki situation last November. Be brave, guys. Put your money where your mouth is. If you really think ID should not be a religio-political movement causing fights by seeking government endorsement, then you should stand by your principles and condemn the Kansas Science Standards. Put up or shut up. Or is all this high-minded talk about a "Post-Wedge World" just a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there is nothing to ID but a strategy to introduce a specific religious view into the public schools.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
The comments posted at McNeill's site are so superficial that it seems to me that its not really worth trying to parse the meaning, or infer meaning from them. Maybe I'm missing something here…
Comment by David — July 30, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Krauze,
You gave your quote from the weblog and I'll give mine…
Regarding personalites and movements or whatever, I think this quote form the Cornell weblog says it all about where people's hearts really are. All the politics (like Kansas) surrounding ID is irrelevant to most people at a personal level regarding the theory itself. I died laughing when I saw this:
What really matters
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 30, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Talk about ducking and avoiding questions. Is Krauze correct in extrapolating from the views of a tiny handful of Ivy Leaguers to "Joe Q Teleologist" Or are the opinions of hundreds or thousands (or more) of others, whose words and actions fly totally in the face of the fanciful picture Krauze paints, more representative of Joe Q?
Put another way: out here in the real world (as opposed to the PWW), a thousand (or a million) is a whole lot more than ten. Why should any credence be given TTers, who are asserting, amazingly enough, that the well-hidden words of a few outliers, completely unaccompanied by any sort of action, are the voice of a movement whose every public utterance and action is completely at odds with the claims we hear on this board?
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
"You folks who think we are in (or should be in) a post-Wedge World are simply not credible when you refuse to take a forthright stand on issues like Kansas. Do you support the science standards or not?"
Present students with a broad array of evidence including evidence that is problematic from a naturalist point of view.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
The comments posted at McNeill's site are so superficial that it seems to me that its not really worth trying to parse the meaning, or infer meaning from them. Maybe I'm missing something here"¦
I agree that there is little actual meaning (that is, after all, one of the main things I'm pointing out — and, I suspect that one of the things Krause is indirectly getting at). But, I see value in pointing it out and showing *why.*
Today, many schools don't teach students how to think critically; they discourage critical and logical thinking. Yet, the fact remains that it is our nature as humans to desire to think rationally and logically — it seems to me that being shown *why* certain classes of "arguments" don't stand up to critical examination can help those who want to make the effort overcome their educational deficit.
Comment by Ilion — July 30, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Nick M.:
What's the matter with Kansas science standards? Please cite the relevant portions for us and list your objections. That way I can take a forthright stand on an issue that seems to bother you a lot.
The scientific community can base their fears on whatever scares them most. All communities do that, regardless of whether or not their fears have any substantial merit. As for the sociopolitical arena where you say 99% of the ID 'movement' is engaged, it looks to me to be the proper arena for these people's concerns. In what arena are you engaged battling your fears, if not sociopolitical?
I have no problem with religious people speaking about, writing about or practicing their religion, or promoting their beliefs in the sociopolitical arena. That is their right. They can even form a whole political party and compete for votes under our governmental system, though they can't violate the terms of the charter without declaring a revolution. I do not believe a revolution is likely to succeed, so I'm not afraid of letting people have and exercise rights.
You can be afraid if you want. You just can't do anything about it.
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Matzke:
I see. Since we opposed the teaching of ID in Dover and we applauded the decision in Dover, the goal posts have been moved. Nevertheless, as usual, I will walk the extra mile and submit myself to questioning that appears to hint of a witch-hunt.
I cannot answer this for the simple reason that I have not read the science standards and cannot responsibly comment from a position of ignorance. What's more, I don't trust either side to accurately relay them. Furthermore, neither am I interested in reading a bureaucratic document and taking some political stand.
I have made my position crystal clear on many occasions "“ I oppose the teaching of ID in public schools and I oppose any variation on the "teach the controversy" approach. Look at it this way. Consider a standard biology textbook and the way it teaches about science and evolution. I have no problem with it.
If you are to preach about "science standards," I would remind you of the scientific standard where lack of evidence need not be evidence of lack. Our failure to loudly condemn the Kansas standards is matched by our failure to loudly advocate for such standards. Proponents of teaching ID could just as easily use your standards to imply that we oppose the Kansas standards because we fail to speak out in support of them.
Again, I have not researched the "Intelligent Design Network" so I cannot responsibly make public claims about them. If the "Intelligent Design Network" is part of the socio-political movement, then it represents the socio-political aspect of the culture wars that seeks to use ID as a tool. I have made it clear that my interest in ID is related to the concept of ID, and not this socio-political agenda. My socio-political commentary is largely focused on reminding people that the critics' paint with a broad, stereotypical brush that can confuse people when they are confronted by our positions and arguments. Some of us, as our blog says, try to think about ID independently, as we found each other on the ARN forum.
I never said they shouldn't. However, when one thinks about the concept of design and how it might intersect with biotic reality, knee-jerk reactions to a socio-political movement are likely to front-load a state of both confirmation and disconfirmation bias. Is it possible for the "scientific community" to think about the concept of ID without the filter of the DI and its actions?
What matters in the Post-Wedge world is whether the Wedge is alive and kicking. As Ed Brayton insightfully noted, "On the other hand, they know that if the school board loses this case - particularly if it gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and loses there - it's pretty much the end for ID in public schools. That would set a nationwide precedent that would ban ID from public school science classrooms." The school board lost. It's pretty much the end of ID in the public schools. It's the Post-Wedge World. Of course there will always remain some sociopolitical element of the movement, as we happen to live in a pluralistic, democratic society where the government forces people to pay the bills for their local schools. None of that matters. What matters is whether ID will be taught in the public schools.
You are engaged in one-dimensional posturing here. Whether some anonymous bloggers take yet another political stand has no bearing on the religio-political movement. A more productive method, over the long-term, is to encourage critical thinking, help people to see the difference between ID and religion, and ultimately, to put some aspect of ID to work to determine whether it helps us better make sense of the biotic world.
Given that Judge Jones made it EXTREMELY difficult to use ID as a strategy to introduce a specific religious view into the public schools, then ID should no longer have a reason to exist. I guess that means that our existence in the Post-Wedge World causes you great dissonance. You are a victim of your own rhetorical excess, Nick.
We won in Dover, Nick. Why do you insist on acting like you lost? It's almost as if you don't want to be in a post-wedge world.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Art:
This is more confusion on Art's part. He thinks that when Krauze speaks, Krauze is somehow speaking for the socio-political movement and trying to defend/justify them. Art fails to realize that Krause is only speaking for himself and those like him. The idea here is simple. Because Art hears "Ann Coulter" or "John Calvert" or "Jerry Falwell" when Krauze speaks, Krauze learns to dismiss Art's opinions, even when Art begins to speak about areas of his expertise. For example, Art says "there is no evidence for ID." Who cares what Art thinks? What makes him qualified to pass such judgments? He asks, "Why should any credence be given to TTers?" Well, who appointed Art judge? Why should Art be given any credence?
Look, if Art wants to go out into the world to fight the Good Fright, fine. Out there, he'll find lots of data that comfortably fits his stereotypes. Whether or not he (or we) fight, I am completely confident that no Theocracy will emerge (and look forward to revisiting the Fear of the Theocracy twenty years from now, with archived fears and complaints). But when Art comes into TT, he doesn't seem to get that he has flushed his credibility away. By imposing his stereotypes on us, he makes himself impotent before our eyes.
Unlike Art, we do not come to this topic with a closed-mind. We do not trumpet ID as some powerful, revolutionary truth and demand that others acknowledge it. We approach it with great caution and a healthy dose of doubt. If indeed ID is purely bunk, someone with Art's expertise and knowledge could eventually get us to walk away from ID. There are no conversions "“ things can simply fade over time. But someone like Art will never be able to accomplish this because he has taken himself out of the game.
So in the meantime, we can note that TT is a fairly popular ID blog, despite the fact that we promote evolution and eschew the socio-political agenda. Art can accuse of us with all sorts of innuendo, but I suspect that even some critics see through the rhetoric. Add this to the students Kruaze talks about and the future may be more interesting than Art can imagine.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 4:47 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Salvador:
Sal,
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here, but then we have a set-up for confirmation bias. IMHO, those who want to research ID ultimately have to get to the point where they largely give up the "hope" and rid ID of some burden of validating one's religious perspective. Consider the perspective of Francis Collins, for example.
ID, at this stage, is only about detecting design. From the religious perspective, there is no guarantee that our limited brains will be able to empirically detect divine design events from the ancient past. In other words, failure to detect intelligent design is not evidence that intelligent design does not exist. Our methods and models may simply be too primitive.
ID will take off when students find the topic of design to be interesting more so than comforting. The concept of ID needs to arouse curiosity. Rather than being a means to an end, it must serve as its own end.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Nick writes:
"Or is all this high-minded talk about a "Post-Wedge World" just a smokescreen to obscure the fact that there is nothing to ID but a strategy to introduce a specific religious view into the public schools."
If all there is to ID is "a strategy to introduce a specific religious view into the public schools", then what does Nick think goes on at this blog? We are obviously writing from an ID-friendly perspective, yet on nummerous occasions have made it clear that we are not interested in meddling with the public school system. So according to Nick's "fact", we must all be lying. All of this post-wedge talk must really be a smokescreen to hide the fact that we want a specific religious view taught in schools.
Who is the leading expert on the motivations and beliefs of Krauze? Why, it's Krauze. So when Nick makes claims that Krauze knows are false, Nick too will experience his credibility draining away with this particular teleologist.
Comment by Krauze — July 30, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
I think the problem is that even though Krauze and Mike Gene believe we live in a post-wedge world, other ID proponents don't believe we live in a post-wedge world. To them, wedge world is still very much alive. And that's what makes it all so complicated. Will this new, young generation of ID proponents adopt a post-wedge or wedge view? We know that MacNeill's students seem to have adopted a post-wedge view. But what about students at other places?
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I appreciate your concern Mike. However, as usual, I am a very transparent person, and what motivates me and those like me, whether for good or naught, is there for all to see.
Perhaps that is why I will not be a good ID researcher. That is why Michael Denton, Frank Tipler, Rober Jastrow, even yourself and Michael Behe I would trust to be more objective than I.
That's not to say I wouldn't be competent from the standpoint of mental ability, but my biases would probably force me to recuse myself in findings dealing with more controversial areas.
I'm probably far more suited for things where the experimental and empirical findings are the final judge of theories, such as physical experiments or engineering applications. Where we must resort to inferences rather than direct observations, we are far more vulnerable to make mistakes.
Where I am now is that as an engineer, at this stage in my life, it would take a far greater act of faith for me personally to think life is all an accident. Those who help settle the issue are perhaps a generation away.
One thing I will say however, I do not think most of the prevailing theories in evolutionary biology are up to the level of other scientific theories, like say, electro-dynamics. I feel comfortable in those conclusions. And I do think Behe is closer to the truth than Ken Miller….
That said, here is a saying close to my heart:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 30, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Thanks to MG for his thoughts. I find it exceedingly strange that TT would have extensive commentary on things like the Mirecki situation in Kansas, including in-depth analysis of the various PT postings on the matter, and yet never even bother to read the Kansas Science Standards which were passed last November.
These standards currently make Kansas the only state that includes "irreducible complexity" (direct quote) in the curriculum. You can read the passages that the ID Network got inserted into the Kansas Science Standards (which the ID advocates of course insiste do not include ID) here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc...
Then why does the entire state of Kansas currently have "irreducible complexity" and numerous other changes inserted into its statewide science standards? These changes were officially passed on the very same day, last November, that the Dover Area School Board was voted out of office.
"We" won because because a group of people chose to stand up and call "B.S." on the "We're science, not religion/not creationism" claims of the ID movement. If you had had anything to do with it, I doubt any of this would have happened.
In the frequent "Post-Wedge World" posts on TT, defeats like this are noted, and then the claim is made that people shouldn't worry any more about the religio-political nature and goals of the ID movement. But what is not mentioned, is that such defeats come about only because scientists and others actually do get worried, stand up and take action.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 7:34 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
From Nick's link:
I see three issues:
1) Is the quoted statement scientifically wrong?
2) If the statement isn't wrong, should it be included in the Kansas standards?
3) Is this wedge world strategy for introducing ID or religous views into science classes?
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Like, say, Ilion, Sal, Joy, and Bradford? If the vote among ID supporters is 4-2 (assuming Mike Gene and Krauss are actually against the Intelligent Design Network's changes to the Kansas Science Standards, which they kinda-sorta have said even though they apparently haven't read the changes) even on TT's own blog, then the evidence for a Post-Wedge World is weak indeed.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Hi Bilbo,
You make an interesting point. But in the end, it's not about perceptions. The Dover decision is part of objective reality and has had real-world consequences. Whether or not we live in the Post-Wedge world is not defined by the existence of people who want ID taught in schools; it is defined by likelihood that ID will be taught in the public schools. Are we to believe that the Dover decision has no bearing on the likelihood that ID will be taught in the public schools?
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Excuse me? Where have I indicated support for the wedge?
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 7:55 pm
Are we to believe that the Dover decision has no bearing on the likelihood that ID will be taught in the public schools?
Sure it does. But on the other hand, it ain't a Supreme Court decision. So there is still wiggle room. Though it may take a few years, I can see the issue popping up again in other school districts. But until the Supreme Court rules on it, I think we're in between wedge and post-wedge world. Let's hope the new generation of ID proponents are just interested in discovering whether ID can be turned into a legitimate scientific enterprise.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Well, Bilbo, let's ask Steve Abrams, the young-earth creationist on the Kansas Board of Education, chairman of the Board, and the leader on the Board of both the 2000 and 2004 assaults on the Kansas Science Standards. From here:
"Kinds" = the allegedly created kinds of animals described in Genesis. For decades, creationists have misused the microevolution/macroevolution distinction (using it in a way totally different from actual scientific usage) as code for "microevolution within the Genesis kinds" (which they accept) versus "macroevolution of new kinds" (which they deny because they think it contradicts their literal reading of Genesis, which says that the "kinds" were specially created by God).
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
Nick wrote:
But the word "kinds" does not appear in the standards. No doubt Steve Abrams has religious motives for including the quoted passage in the standards. But does that mean they want to use the standards to introduce ID or religious views into science classes?
And you didn't answer my first two questions.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Requoting part of the standards:
While I'm waiting for others to comment, I think I'll offer my own two amateurish cents:
I don't think this statement is completely accurate. That changes from one species to another have occurred is not all that controversial. So "macroevolutionary changes" aren't controversial. What is controversial is how those changes have occurred. And here we don't need to introduce ID. Lynn Margulis and her theory of symbiogenesis will do.
So if I were king of Kansas, I would emend the offending passage.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Bilbo asks:
1. Yes.
2. See #1.
3. Huh?? (It's clear that the KBOE wants to introduce inaccurate and mistaken ideas into the classroom, with the only purpose of assailing evolution as the well-established and supported scientific theory that it is. Is that what you were asking? :razz:)
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Bilbo writes,
Yep. The various ID Network people, the Discovery Institute, and the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education have all said similar things. This is what it's all about: they believe in special creation. They want this view supported by the government schools, like evolution is. Therefore they have bastardized the science standards to make it appear that common ancestry is scientifically doubtful, and they hint every chance they get for "design" or creation — the only reason they are not more explicit is because they are afraid of a constitutional challenge.
Question #1 was: "1) Is the quoted statement scientifically wrong?"
The evidence for common ancestry is here. The various problems with Behe's irreducible complexity argument are here. The problems with the creationist version of the micro/macro distinction are here. The whole bit about "direct observations" is similarly devious and wrong — is the K-T impact, a macroevolutionary event, not based on direct observations? Isn't quantum theory based on indirect observations? They are just trying to slip in the premise that evolution is particularly speculative.
"2) If the statement isn't wrong, should it be included in the Kansas standards?"
Even if the statement were right, or (more likely) was written cleverly so that creationists would use it to justify teaching creationism, but that lawyers defending it would claim it was based on science found in the scientific literature — this still wouldn't necessarily justify putting it in the science standards. High school science standards have to be judged on pedagogy as well as accuracy.
If we were to close our eyes and ears and pretend, against all of the evidence, that the Kansas Board of Education was really just referring to debates about macroevolution like Stephen Jay Gould's views on species sorting and post-mass extinction survival probabilities, then I suspect that educators would conclude that the material is too advanced for an introductory course where students are just beginning to learn the basics of evolution.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Art:
No.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Re-re-quoting the passage:
The passage is ambiguous. Is it calling common ancestry into question? Or is it calling random mutation and natural selection into question as the mechanism for major changes? If the first, then I agree with Art and Nick that it's just plain wrong. If the second, then Nick and Art need to argue with Lynn Margulis, not Michael Behe.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
Hi Bilbo,
I'm only guessing at what you asked - the question needs a couple of small words to make sense to me (an "a" would help a bit). Assuming that I have things correct, ask yourself why the KBOE wants to introduce inaccurate material? What do you think their intent is, if not to promote some ID or religious agenda in the science class?
joy, recall that a huge part of the Wedge is evolution NO! You are among the most ardent of the TTer anti-evolution crew (Mike's claim that TT is pro-evolution notwithstanding - one has to wonder if he reads the blog entries or comments). I think that's why Nick would assume you to be a Wedgie. And I think he has a point.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Matzke: The various problems with Behe's irreducible complexity argument are here.
None of which addresses the central point of Behe's description. Empirical evidence for the evolution of multi-protein complexes is weak. It contrasts with the strong evidence for unicellular adaptation documented by point mutations and other single step events. The contrast is telling and not mitigated by homologous protein arguments.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
My time at the library is up. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic…never mind, you already have the topic.
Comment by Bilbo — July 30, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
It's random variation, and Margulis' ideas add to the arsenal by which living things can scramble their genomes. No problems there.
I think anti-evolutionists need to stop misrepresenting Margulis. The mechanisms she proposes, while not of the traditional neo-Darwinian mode, are most definitely random (in the curious sense that anti-evolutionists use the term) and the results are most definitely subject to the culling of natural selection. IOW, random variation and natural selection.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 8:55 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Art: (Mike's claim that TT is pro-evolution notwithstanding - one has to wonder if he reads the blog entries or comments). I think that's why Nick would assume you to be a Wedgie. And I think he has a point.
Hah. Art has discovered that natural history is used to promote non-scientific concerns. But we all knew that. I traced a line of prominent atheists who were not shy about linking evolution to theology (or their hostility to it). The hidden objection is the values of a particular subset of IDers. Don't worry. Just as the atheists could not extinguish a belief in God so too will ID not impede opposition to values symbolized by the Wedge document. Incidentally Mike has made a point of stressing his focus on design for its own sake; side issues aside. I'm inclined to agree.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
IlÃon is not a "ID supporter;" he's a 'creationist' and an 'a-Darwinist;' he's an 'anti-modern-evolutionary-theorist.'
Also, since IlÃon scoffs at the amusing and tender religious sensibilities (that touching, albeit quaint, faith in "Science") of all Defenders Of Science Against The Onslaught Of The Ignorant Creationist Hordes, he must perforce scoff at your assertion of concern over the "Kansas Science Standards."
In other words, "Science" is *your* religion; I don't have a dog in that fight (the one about "protecting" "Science.") In fact, if I *did* have a dog in that fight, my dog would be instructed to eat yours — I am all for knocking your goddess "Science" off her unearned pedestal.
Comment by Ilion — July 30, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Art:
That's very odd, Art. Considering that I have no problem with evolution and have never claimed on this or any other forum that I did have a problem with it. Perhaps you and Nick have me confused with someone else. You know what they say about assumptions, don't you?
Comment by Joy — July 30, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Funny, the evolutionists have used evolutionary models to make successful research predictions in top journals on one of Behe's favorite IC systems, the immune system. I guess we'll just have to chalk all that up to luck, eh?
And: Why do you think that the evolution of large protein complexes, involving many point mutations, should have been observed within the very few years that scientists have even been aware of these things? You might as well be asking for birds to evolve wings in the lab. It's a silly request. Science requires testable models and passed tests, not impossible requests for video-camera documentation of every event that occurred over billions of years.
Comment by Nick Matzke — July 30, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Matzke: And: Why do you think that the evolution of large protein complexes, involving many point mutations, should have been observed within the very few years that scientists have even been aware of these things? You might as well be asking for birds to evolve wings in the lab. It's a silly request. Science requires testable models and passed tests, not impossible requests for video-camera documentation of every event that occurred over billions of years.
It was not a request. It simply notes the empirical discrepency in support for unicellular adaptation as opposed to the multi-protein complexes referred to. Your point about the historic nature of the proposed scenario only reinforces my point that evidence by extrapolation is unavoidable if you wish to contend, for example, that the enzymes that are component parts of universal metabolic pathways evolved in Darwinian fashion. Fashioning selection criteria the evolution of metabolic pathway enzymes from precursor proteins and identifying what these precursors might have been would be a most entertaining post. Behe was much too indulgent in his choice of IC systems.
Comment by Bradford — July 30, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Bilbo:
Good point. Although I would say we are far closer to the post-wedge world than the wedge world. The Dover decision provided a very, very steep hill for the Wedge. And I think we can count on Nick and his friends to be ever-vigilant.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Nick:
I don't see the connection here. We commented on the Mirecki situation in Kansas, therefore we would read and comment on the Kansas Science Standards. Er, why?
Like I said, I don't trust either side to accurately convey the standards. If you are correct that the standards call for the teaching of IC, I have already made it clear that I oppose the teaching of ID in the schools. Is there some part of this position that you have trouble understanding?
If they were passed last Fall, then I would assume they will not be implemented until this Fall. As such, if some teacher tries to use the standards as cover to teach ID, I expect that sooner or later, a lawsuit will be filed. You will then get a chance for Dover II and I expect that you will win.
Given your habit of misrepresenting us, I would like you to provide the documentation that we have said "people shouldn't worry any more about the religio-political nature and goals of the ID movement." You are free to worry all you want. That's not the issue. As TT readers can see from this thread, it is you that has demanded we at TT should be worrying and issuing public statements.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Nick:
Now ain't that interesting? Consider that many ID critics want a video-tape of the designer designing, along with a complete psychological profile of the designer, and independent evidence of his tools.
Comment by MikeGene — July 30, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
joy:
LOL. Someone's been using joy's sign-in on ARN?
A sampling - just a sampling, of the many, many posts and threads in which joy denigrates Darwinists, Darwin, neo-Darwinians, neo-Darwinism, the mechanisms, and the conclusions. Press her on specifics and she accepts none of it.
But maybe you've had a change of heart, joy. Maybe yer now on board with the widely-accepted, well-supported theory that all life shares a common ancestry, and that the different forms of life that exist are derived through the process of random variation and natural selection. If so, welcome aboard!
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
That's one of the general problems with 'Darwinists:' they can't read. 'Course, the *really* big problem with the vast majority of 'em is that they just can't seem to think critically/logically and they can't seem to talk (or think) without equivocation.
Joy said: "I have no problem with evolution and have never claimed on this or any other forum that I did have a problem with it"
To say: "I have no problem with evolution …" (whatever that term is being used to mean at any specific usage of it) is quite a different thing from saying "I'm on board the 'Darwinist' bandwagon with the other Orthodoxen."
But then, to be able to grasp that simple fact of life and language, Art would be required to out-grow equivocal language. But Art (nor the other Orthodoxen) cannot give up equivocation, since the strongest "evidence" for The TrVth relies upon equivocation for its "explanitory power."
Comment by Ilion — July 30, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
LOL. Talk about not being able to read….
Ilion, I always mean, when I speak about evolution and the evolution deniers, "the widely-accepted, well-supported theory that all life shares a common ancestry, and that the different forms of life that exist are derived through the process of random variation and natural selection." There's no hidden meaning, no equivocation, just the plain-as-day statement. For as long as I've been in these discussions, this is what I've meant. Everyone knows it. (Well, those that can read.) joy responded specifically to my claim, and she must have meant this when she claimed she had no problems with evolution. If she didn't, then it's up to her to inform us as to her usage. (She won't say anything very specific, so don't be holding yer breath.)
The terms are clearly spelled-out, and always have been. And it's plain as day that my assertion that joy is firmly in the evolution NO! camp is pretty spot-on. Not that she's alone in the TT tent.
Comment by Art — July 30, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
July 30th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Joy certainly may be in the 'Darwinism NO!' camp, but that is quite a different thing from being in the 'evolution NO!' camp.
Just as I said, you can't read. And that's because you can't speak (or think) without equivocation.
But that's your problem, not mine (or Joy's). It does, however, lend itself to humorous results, such as your current attempt to paint Joy as "confused" on the matter.
As is typical of Darwindefensor internetensis, you appear unable to grasp the simple concept that "Ideas about things are not the things themselves."
Comment by Ilion — July 30, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
July 31st, 2006 at 12:20 am
Art, if you don't read someone's posts or cannot glean information content from them, you'd have no clue where that person stands on issues like the wedge or evolution. So you'd be very likely to be called out if you assert that you do know that person's position on those issues (and get it completely wrong).
If you do read and can understand the person's posts, then you'd know something about that person's position (if those issues had been discussed and positions stated). You'd be very likely to be called out if you deliberately misrepresent their stated position too.
Why, just this past Wednesday I characterized Johnson as a "wannabe theocrat" over in Mike's Metaphysical Roots of Abiogenesis thread. And while you may believe with all your heart that Neodarwinism *IS* evolution, that doesn't make it true. Nor does anyone's lack of belief-in Neodarwinism mean they are "anti-evolution."
I'd appreciate it if both you and Nick wouldn't stoop to deliberate misrepresentation. I'm entirely likely to call you out on it, so there's nothing useful to be gained from the tactic.
Thanks.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2006 @ 12:20 am
July 31st, 2006 at 12:43 am
The evidence tells us that all life shares a common ancestry, and that life forms arise via random variation and natural selection. Evidence, joy. Something TTers discard, as it defies their assertions.
Your metaphysics deny HTR, joy. You're not alone, and I suppose in a philosophy class such a POV would make for some interesting (for some of us, though, teeth-gnashing) discussion.
But don't tell us that yer not anti-evolution. 'Cause it just ain't so.
LOL. Belief in some loopy quantum/mind-driven quasi-Lamarckian fantasy doesn't make one an "evolutionist", joy. It does makes them intellectual cousins of people like those who promote Association Induction as the mechanism for membrane transport.
Comment by Art — July 31, 2006 @ 12:43 am
July 31st, 2006 at 4:46 am
Don't extrapolate beyond the evidence. These kids recognized that Johnson's stuff isn't science, and they claimed it isn't even ID. There is no indication that they have no brief for polemics of any kind, nor that they are genuinely interested in seeing ID succeed as science.
A more conservative view would be that their eyes have been opened to the feet of clay the ID monument rests on.
Comment by edarrell — July 31, 2006 @ 4:46 am
July 31st, 2006 at 6:19 am
Art: The evidence tells us that all life shares a common ancestry, and that life forms arise via random variation and natural selection. Evidence, joy. Something TTers discard, as it defies their assertions.
Random variation of nucleotides presupposes the existence of a viable genome. The evidence shows no pathways to an initial viable genome from a prebiotic starting point. Evidence, Joy. It defies the assertions of Darwinists.
Your metaphysics deny HTR, joy. You're not alone, and I suppose in a philosophy class such a POV would make for some interesting (for some of us, though, teeth-gnashing) discussion.
In other words Joy, your metaphysics not your scientific views are the primary concern. BTW, why is the j in Joy not capitalized?
Comment by Bradford — July 31, 2006 @ 6:19 am
July 31st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Bradford:
Art and I don't see eye to eye on certain applications of a genetic determinism that turned out not to be so deterministic, so we've been around on this carousel a few times. If I had to guess, I'd suspect he doesn't respect me well enough to address me with a proper noun. That's okay, since my name works as well as a common noun.
It seems entirely evident that life forms have changed over deep time, and the last ~550 million years have been really exciting. When we observe life, we see variation and differential reproduction as well as relative levels of 'success' at binding time. We may suppose these observables factor into the process of evolution, if we can presume that our observations reflect reality rather than illusion. Neodarwinism is adamant about which observations we may take as real and which must be considered illusion - if it seems to confirm the theory it's real, if it suggests something more it's illusion.
Common descent is a fair supposition, though nowhere as absolute as Neodarwinists would have it be now that we know more than either Darwin or Mendel knew. Carl Woese suggests an early 'HGT Field' that spawned several distinct lineages, and we know that horizontal gene transfer is still quite common in microbial life forms and also occurs in more complex 'higher' organisms. New evidence suggests that prokaryote cells may have devolved from original eukaryotes, challenging the favored 'direction of evolution' in the Neodarwinian scheme and adding a level of complexity at the beginning that throws abiogenesis a nasty curve.
The development of organizational consciousness (a quantitative measure, btw) coincides with the sudden burst of evolutionary creativity evidenced in Cambrian rocks, thus may play a causal and/or organizational role in the process of evolution as well. The complex social developments of life forms also serve to constrain and modify the mechanisms of evolution. Things are not as simple as was supposed back when living cells were considered "bags of goo."
I'm not afraid of complexity or indeterminism, so I'm not impressed with Neodarwinism's simplistic pablum. Life is complicated. I see no reason to assume evolution is not complicated too. Art says that makes me "anti-evolution" because his version of evolution is Absolute Truth in his own mind - there can be no other. I can't change his mind, but neither can he change mine. That's okay too.
Comment by Joy — July 31, 2006 @ 10:11 am
July 31st, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Nick,
I read your commentary in Natural Immunology. And then read your reply to Behe's reply to Bottaro's paper. Gosh. I'm not sure I have time to try to figure out who's right and who's wrong. Maybe if I read Bottaro's paper. Is it online?
Comment by Bilbo — July 31, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
August 1st, 2006 at 2:24 am
Joy disputes the mainstream interpretation of evolutionary theory; that doesn't make her part of the Wedge. The Wedge movement is a social movement with aims that are completely orthogonal to many of Joy's clearly stated beliefs. To associate her with that movement simply because she disputes some aspects of mainstream evolution theory is sheer absurdity - it's the kind of simple-minded dichotomous thinking that so often paralyses this debate.
Comment by Mesk — August 1, 2006 @ 2:24 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:28 am
Art:
Okay, I give. What's this "HTR" my metaphysics denies? Google gave me the Confirmation Bias thread here (where the acronym goes unexplained), a physics forum for the discussion of HTR fuel elements (high temperature reactor), Healing Through Remembering (Belfast Academical Institution), Helicopters of the Third Reich, Hard To Receive (about speaking in tongues and such), and lots of links to articles in the Harvard Theological Review.
Mesk:
Thanks.
Comment by Joy — August 2, 2006 @ 12:28 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 am
Joy,
I'll give you the gist of Art's likely reply: "Slow on the uptake, eh? I'll give you clue - It is something that TTers want to outlaw."
I tried to have a conversation with Art about this here. Art walked away.
Comment by MikeGene — August 2, 2006 @ 12:43 am
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:44 am
Bradford,
joy (lower case) was/is joy's moniker on the ARN boards. That she would react as she does, when all I'm doing is trying to be consistent, shows us a bit of her, um, paranoid side. (Maybe a Darwinian trait, needed to survive amongst the snakes