Comment #10210

Posted by fusilier on November 12, 2004 11:37 AM (e) (s)

The radio personality Paul Harvey is mentioning Dover today, 11-12-04.  He is explicitly saying (quoting from memory, I apologize for any errors) that “…this is as far as they can go, without saying the ‘G-word.’  “

Any court challenge might make use of this.

fusilier
James 2:24

Comment #10226

Posted by Steve on November 12, 2004 04:44 PM (e) (s)

I think there’s a fair chance they’ll succeed in getting ID into high-school classrooms. But on the bright side, if the IDiots fail to win with this Creationism 2.0, I think they will have suffered a serious blow for ever getting a version of creationism into public school science. ID is such a general and vague creationism that it would be difficult to come up with a new kind which is not recognizable as ID. Even if they could, it would take years and lots of effort to get back to this level of political competitiveness. And could the Discovery Institute, Wells, Behe, Dembski, etc, publicly work for the new effort, without confirming that the new version is the same type of thing? If the courts successfully identify ID as creationism, and prohibit it, It’ll be a very good day in America. The creationists will have no clear idea how to proceed. AFAIK.

Comment #10230

Posted by Flint on November 12, 2004 09:16 PM (e) (s)

Steve:

I find your optimism refreshing. Are you familiar with the tax protesters? This particular pathology is distinctly similar to creationism, but the differences are informative. The taxdolts aren’t disputing real-world evidence (which always has an element of ambiguity), but explicit law. They are opposed by EVERY tax accountant, court decision, administrative decision, lawmaker, and bureaucrat. They are jailed for being in contempt of court simply for *raising* these issues. Yet these factors don’t deter them in any way. The lawyers defending the taxdolts find more work than they can handle, every time their jail sentences expire.

For someone who has a hotline to the Truth, new arguments are unnecessary. The old arguments are still “right”, the only challenge is to word them so that the “kangaroo courts” can understand them. We can be thankful that the taxdolts aren’t trying to get their doctrines into high school civics classes.

Don’t lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of US voters believe in the Christian God, accepts that science is a Good Thing, and fervently desires them to kiss and make up. ID holds forth the idea that they do so. Hallelujia, belief is upheld, science is ratified, the international competitiveness of US students is rescued without threatening Faith, God’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world. Do you really think any particular court decision can eliminate these social forces?

Comment #10231

Posted by Steve on November 12, 2004 09:24 PM (e) (s)

SCOTUS precedent is a pretty strong thing.

Comment #10232

Posted by Flint on November 12, 2004 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Steve:

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to. I agree that SCOTUS decisions are important, but they are also problematic. For example, SCOTUS decisions formerly (before the Warren court) followed the format of presenting the argument of the losing side, then presenting the problems with that argument, then presenting the decision itself (with rationale). This format was a goldmine for quote-mining — just quote the part of the decision where the losing side’s argument is presented.

For another thing, Lawyers and courts make a career of differentiating (also known as “splitting hairs”). To some degree, this is inevitable. Fact situations are differentiated on the basis of details so unique to a case that it’s often difficult to extract a useful policy.

But let’s be optimistic and assume a SCOTUS decision that essentially discredits “intelligent design” or (better yet) the projection of ANY “intelligent” (i.e. humanlike, volitional) influence in the origin of species. Sounds great, but we still have more heads of this particular hydra to decapitate:

1) We don’t want a SCOTUS decision that might pre-empt any possible legitimate future scientific development. A broad decision today might seem like paradise, but tomorrow it might seem that SCOTUS is stifling genuine science based on obsolte understaings.

2) We don’t want to underestimate the perseverence of the opposition. This was the lesson of the tax protesters, who remain as virulent as ever despite explicit decisions and punishments. Remember (actually, considering your post, *understand*) that we’re dealing with a political and not a judicial issue. The foundation of the tax protester movement isn’t legal; it’s that people don’t want to pay taxes. Remember the Dred Scott decision? Religion being presented as “science” in high schools is prevented by entirely appointable judges. Bush is President. The SCOTUS tends to decide such matters 5-4 repeatedly. Three of those five won’t make it 4 more years…

Religious fanatics don’t change their faith because civil judges disagree. They simply work to get “better” judges. Roy (“Fuck the Constitution, my opinion uber alles”) Moore could be elected God here in Alabama by a huge majority. ANY solution to this condition is a band-aid. The people WANT a theocracy (which accepts their particular interpretation of scripture, of course).

SCOTUS decisions are no stronger than the composition of the court, soon to change and probably drastically and for a long time. Creationists, whatever their shortcomings, understand that their campaign is political, and understand politics.

(Parental decisions are also pretty strong, until the child leaves home. At which point, what matters isn’t so much the decisions as the perceived basis for them. And I just don’t believe that science will trump God’s Word as a basis for the curriculum. Temporary legal setbacks don’t perturb tax protestors or creationists)

Comment #10234

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on November 12, 2004 11:41 PM (e) (s)

Flint is exactly right, although I would add a third item: We don’t want to undermine the freedom of religion, or freedom of conscience more generally, one of the great treasures of our Constitution. A Supreme Court decision holding that ID violates the Establishment Clause would almost certainly not damage freedom of religion, but there are fanatics on our side who would like to go farther than that, and censor ID even among private advocacy groups. That’s unwarranted, and if established, could easily backfire on us.

Second, he’s exactly right about most Americans wanting science and religion to kiss and make up. This brings to mind the delightful Simpsons episode in which Lisa discovers an “angel” skeleton, starting off a Scopes-trial in Springfield. In the end, the judge issues a restraining order, commanding Religion to stay at least 100 yards away from Science at all times. Hear, hear!

Comment #10239

Posted by Steve on November 13, 2004 12:57 AM (e) (s)

“I’m just trying to get into heaven. I’m not running for Jesus.”

—Homer Simpson

Comment #10242

Posted by Pericles on November 13, 2004 06:06 AM (e) (s)

And what was the “angel” skeleton? A ploy by business owners to publise the opening of a new shopping mall. Mammon is the new (old?) god?

Pericles

Comment #10246

Posted by Tom Gray on November 13, 2004 11:44 AM (e) (s)

I know that I will probably regret this but  I thought that I should respond. Darwinism prevailed over its competitor Lamarckism because of Darwin’s insight into selective advantage as the mechanism for evolution in biological system. Lamarck had proposed the inheritance of acquired traits. The theory is logically consistent but no mechanism capable of this has been found in biological systems.

However the inheritance of acquired traits is found in cultural learning. Cultures pass what they have learned onto their children in the form of scientific knowledge, culture, laws mores etc. This led James Baldwin in the 1890s to develop a theory on the effect of culture and the capacity to learn on evolution. Consider a species that has the capacity to learn. One member of that species discovers how to swim. Others can learn that skill as well. Suppose that swimming offers a competitive advantage. Then members of the species who are better at swimming have a selective advantage in breeding and so the genome will evolve to stress this capacity. Baldwinian mechanisms can accelerate bioogocal evolution considerably.

With the development of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, Baldwin’s insights are now yielding valuable research results. Baldwin had a found a mechanism by which Lamarckism could operate. It operates at the cultural and at the interface between the cultural and biological levels. In the last ten years or so, there have been conferences and many papers written to explore Baldwin’s theory.

In the same manner a theory of evolution by intelligent design is not logically inconsistent. It just lacks a proven mechanism by which it can operate at the biological level. However, despite what is said in the posting below, it has viable mechanisms at the cultural level. At least one species (humans) is able to reflect on its culture and make deliberate changes to it. Using Baldwin’s insights, it can then be seen that intelligent design can be part of a hierarchy of evolutionary mechanisms that begin with Darwin’s selective advantage.

The dispute is not whether ‘Intelligent Design’ is a viable evolutionary mechanism. It is. The dispute is whether or not the design comes from within or without the evolutionary process. Modern theorists such as Mcluhan and Teihard de Chardin have developed theories that indirectly show how intelligent design can be created in the evolutionary process itself. There is no need to posit a god in a broader theory of evolution.

Comment #10247

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on November 13, 2004 11:57 AM (e) (s)

I think it is slightly inaccurate to say that the Baldwin effect is “a mechanism by which Lamarckism can operate.” But Mr. Gray seems to be using this as an example to support the argument that we sometimes learn about mechanisms for certain observable facts, when we didn’t know about those mechanisms before. Fair enough, but that’s irrelevant, because it isn’t true that the only flaw in ID is its “lack[  of] a proven mechanism by which it can operate at the biological level.” The flaw in ID is that it posits theories that aren’t theories, and can’t be tested, and that the observable facts are already thoroughly accounted for by a coherent theory which has withstood a century of attacks with its health quite intact. It is of course possible that God planned all this out and is cleverly hiding from us, and nobody disputes that. And it’s possible that we could tomorrow discover convincing proof that this is so. But the flaw in ID is that there’s no evidence, no theory, no nuthin—just a bunch of dressed up creationism and allegations on the level of religious morality and the alleged social consequences of evolutionary science.

Comment #10248

Posted by Tom Gray on November 13, 2004 12:23 PM (e) (s)

Intelligent design is a theory since it can make predictions. It is just that it has no specific mechanism to operate at the biological level. It can however operate at the cultural level and indirectly through Baldwinian mechanisms operate at the biological level. Human beings live within cultures that they have consciously designed. It takes no real insight to realize that the ability to live within a culture is through Baldwinian mechanisms has a strong Darwinian advantage. Thus Intelligent Design at the cultural level has likely (perhaps I should say possibly) had an effect on the human geneome.

To answer proponents of Intelligent Design, one must remember that they are advocating a true theeory. To me, it is obviously not viable at the specific biological level. Never tehs less it is a true theory that is incorrect due to the lack of a mechanism not because of any inherent logical flaw.

The real dispute is whether Intelleigent Design has a designer that resides within or wiothout evolution. It ahs been demsntrated that Inteleigent Design does not require an external designer and so by Occam’s Rule the Intelligent Design withn Evolution is preferred.

Comment #10249

Posted by Tom Gray on November 13, 2004 12:34 PM (e) (s)

For an account of Baldwinian evolution, one may examine

http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/Publications/pub_info.jsp?id=100048…

There are many other accounts available through a Google search.

Comment #10250

Posted by Tom Gray on November 13, 2004 12:41 PM (e) (s)

For some reason the posting software put threee dots after the URL I psoted above. Please delete them to access the paper at that site.

A brief biography of Baldwin may be found at

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/James%20Mark%20Bal…

Comment #10251

Posted by Pete on November 13, 2004 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Tom, if you don’t like the dots use Kwickcode including
text

Comment #10254

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 13, 2004 05:15 PM (e) (s)

Tom Gray:

Intelligent design is a theory since it can make predictions. It is just that it has no specific mechanism to operate at the biological level. It can however operate at the cultural level and indirectly through Baldwinian mechanisms operate at the biological level. Human beings live within cultures that they have consciously designed. It takes no real insight to realize that the ability to live within a culture is through Baldwinian mechanisms has a strong Darwinian advantage. Thus Intelligent Design at the cultural level has likely (perhaps I should say possibly) had an effect on the human geneome.

Baldwinian mechanisms will have minimum effect on human evolution because the time scales are wrong.  Given the size of the human population, time to fixation of any mutation with a selective advantage of 1% or less is in the 10’s to 100’s of thousands of years.  Meanwhile cultures turn over in the hundreds of years.  This means specific features of a culture will not result in a mutation becoming fixed in the population - and the Baldwin mechanism you propose will be effectively non-operant.  This is not a claim that we are immune to Darwinian evolution.  Far from it.  But particular features of particular cultures, unlike the common features of all cultures, are too shortlived to be selectively influential.

Secondly, ID may be a theory in the logicians sense, ie, a set of propositions.  But it is not a scientific theory.  Specifically, it makes no falsifiable predictions except that certain Darwinian research programs will fail.  Further, it does not have a clearly stated set of propositions from which falsifiable predictions could be derived with ancilliarly hypotheses.  If you disagree on these points, please state the propositions, their emperical consequences, and how we could test for those emperical consequences.

ID has advanced three failed hypothesis in the philosophy of science-
That Darwinism is tacitly commited to metaphysical naturalism;
That there is a valid “design inference” from CSI; and that there is a valid “design inference” from IC.  The rest is apologetics, and PR.

Comment #10261

Posted by Quentin Long on November 13, 2004 07:57 PM (e) (s)

Question for Tom Gray: Exactly what ‘predictions’ does Intelligent Design make? ID asserts that a Designer exists, but you can’t make predictions off of the bare assertion that “a Designer exists”. You need to get into some detail about the nature of the Designer — what sort of tools, techniques, abilities, motivations, etc — and thus far, ID has explicitly rejected all inquiries as to the nature of the Designer, even going so far as to declare such inquiries a matter of theology, for crying out loud!
Sorry, but “an unknowable number of unknowable Designers, acting at an unknowable number of unknowable times in the past, used an unknowable number of unknowable tools & techniques to perform an unknowable number of unknowable actions, in accordance with an unknowable number of unknowable motivations” just isn’t science. It may not even be metaphysics, or, indeed, anything other than gobbledygook.

Comment #10275

Posted by Frank J on November 14, 2004 08:03 AM (e) (s)

Quentin Long wrote:

Question for Tom Gray: Exactly what ‘predictions’ does Intelligent Design make?

I’m not sure what Tom will say, but there are well-rehearsed ID answers. The fact is that ID predicts, for example, “Precambrian rabbits” and “no Precambrian rabbits,” “human pseudogenes for chlorophyll” and “no human pseudogenes for chlorophyll.” Get the picture?

Tom Gray wrote:

Intelligent design is a theory since it can make predictions. It is just that it has no specific mechanism to operate at the biological level.

That is a rare admission from an IDer. The fact is that ID has no mechanism, no alternate theory, no alternate timeline, no alternative to common descent, and no promising hypothesis of abiogenesis. The back-and-forth between “evidence of design” and “evidence against (a caricature of) evolution” is just a strategy that keeps most audiences unaware that ID has nothing to offer but misinformation. As some ID critics have noted, and as the chief ID promoters have all but admitted, even if there were something to the “evidence of design” part, the theory would still be evolution.

Quentin Long wrote:

You need to get into some detail about the nature of the Designer — what sort of tools, techniques, abilities, motivations, etc — and thus far, ID has explicitly rejected all inquiries as to the nature of the Designer, even going so far as to declare such inquiries a matter of theology, for crying out loud!

My suspicion is that IDers avoid this question because they know that the most likely candidate for a designer is an alien, not God (note Dembski’s analogies to SETI, forensics and archaeology, and Behe’s mousetrap). But if ID pretends to be an equivalent alternative to evolution, this is not the main question that begs to be asked. Before one even gets to the “hows,” let alone “whether a designer” (which evolution never asks in the first place), one must ask IDers simply “what happened and when?

Comment #10276

Posted by Tom Gray on November 14, 2004 08:18 AM (e) (s)

The most exciting aspect of the theory of evolution, for me, was the realization that it takes places at multiple levels and that the mechanisms at each level can be and are different. Another exciting realization is that intelligence can be a product of evolution. Unfortunately I do not see these realization and their implications reflected in the popular books on evolution that I read.

In Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Ideas”, for example, I read a lot of descriptions of skyhooks creating order from disorder without the need for a guiding intelligence. However I did not read about the interaction of various evolutionary mechanisms. I especially did not read about higher level mechanisms feeding back and modifying the results of lower level mechanisms. The book seems to be an advocacy of a single strongly held opinion in the face of detractors rather than an investigation of the issue.

Previously, I identified three levels of evolution – biological, cultural or learning and something that could be called the reflective level. The biological level contains the familiar Darwinian mechanism of selective advantage. The cultural or learning level contains the Baldwinian mechanisms. Taking the broadest definition of learning and culture, it can be seen that this is active across many species. Finally at least one species on Earth has developed the ability to reflect on and modify its environment. Evolution from inanimate material has created a reflective intelligence that can modify its own environment. Intelligent design can operate at this level.

Thus three levels of evolution can be described with mechanisms at higher levels modifying the context of lower level mechanisms and thus their results. Hypothetically, one can envisage the advantages of culture cooperating at the Baldwinian level to create the consitions whereby evolution at he Darwinian level would select for genomes that produce intelligent individuals who can live in society. The advantages of culture not aspects of any single culture are being sleeted for here. Baldwinian evolution accelerates evolution at the Darwinian level by modifying the environmental context so that the advantages of certain genes may be greatly increased.

With the development of a reflective intelligence, a species developed which can deliberately reflect on and actively modify its environment. It can intelligently design its environment. This in turn will be reflected at the Baldwinian level to encourage the development of certain traits and of course will to a certain extent be then fed back to the Darwinian level.

This idea of intelligent design within evolution is an answer to many of the objections of the hypothesis of intelligent design outside of evolution, For example, the retention of older adaptations and the lack of perfection in creation, is an obvious part of ID within evolution. The intelligent design of society is an ongoing matter not a single instant of creative perfection.

Personally, I find these ideas quite exciting. The interworking of multiple types of evolution and the means by which these interact give evolution to me a much more complete and rewarding character. A fuller understanding of evolutionary mechanisms provided better answers to those who object to it. If some of these objectors attempt to create a theory that is outside of evolution (i.e. ID), a good answer to that would be to show that that theory is not incompatible with evolution but seems to be an inevitable consequence of it.

Comment #10285

Posted by Frank J on November 14, 2004 11:05 AM (e) (s)

Tom Gray wrote:

This idea of intelligent design within evolution is an answer to many of the objections of the hypothesis of intelligent design outside of evolution, For example, the retention of older adaptations and the lack of perfection in creation, is an obvious part of ID within evolution.

The only problem is that the major ID promoters and their creationist followers want no part of “intelligent design within evolution.” Sure, Dembski has admitted that ID “can accommodate all the results of Darwinism.” But (1) that statement is hopelessly ambiguous, and (2) IDers do everything to promote doubt about “Darwinism” and nothing to promote doubt about the potential alternatives, such as those proposed by the mutually contradictory creationisms, and often hinted by the IDers themselves.

If IDers had any interest in “intelligent design within evolution” they would take the advice of some of their own who admit that ID is not sufficiently developed to be taught in science class. Instead of pushing for “equal time” they might recommend Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” as extracurricular reading. Miller’s speculations in the second half of the book may well be the closest thing to “intelligent design within evolution.”

Comment #10286

Posted by jay boilswater on November 14, 2004 12:02 PM (e) (s)

Definitive PROOF of ID (at least of bumper stickers).
Note the tiny “legs” of the hapless Darwin as it is devoured
by Truth in this example.

Comment #10289

Posted by Tom Gray on November 14, 2004 01:04 PM (e) (s)

I was primarily commenting on the integration of a variant of intellegent design to to evolution philosophy and science. One common way that politicians use to ovrcome opposition is to co-opt it. If someone wants intelligent design to be part of a science course then intelligent design within evolution could be taught along with Darwin, Baldwin and Lamarck. One could show how all of these theories can fit into a coherent whole. The issue of the intelligent designer coming from within or before evolution could be discussed.

ID is taught. Darwinism is taught. ID is put into its proper perpectie and students are taught the philosphical, cultural and scientfic purposes and origin of intelligence.

Co-opting an opponent is often times useful How can htey aregue if the opposition is agreeing with them?

Comment #10293

Posted by Flint on November 14, 2004 04:41 PM (e) (s)

I suppose (some of) what Tom Gray is saying is at least plausible. Imagine a religion that teaches eugenics. Imagine some devout breeding population, large enough to represent a decent smorgasbord of selectable traits. Alternatively, imagine science develops some really creative human genetic engineering, and some breeding population decides to go nuts with it. Why couldn’t these cultural phenomena have a noticeable impact within cultural rather than geological time frames?

Comment #10295

Posted by Bryson Brown on November 14, 2004 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Given the aims of the ID folk, I can’t see this reconciliation working out. Natural ID, whether by artificial selection, or by feedback between culture and the selection regime faced by our own genes, or by direct genetic engineering, just won’t cut it for them.  These are perfectly compatible with hard-line philosophical naturalism (and that’s their main target). 

I used to wonder why ID proponents don’t make the obvious, Aquinas-style regress argument for the existence of a supernatural designer: If complex specified information (or irreducible complexity, or both…) is required for the production of any natural designer, then there must be another designer who designed that designer. But in a big-bang cosmology there is only time for a finite number of such designers, and the first would be unexplained, violating the basic ID rules of inference.  So there must be a designer separate from (prior to?) any sequence of natural designers. 

But I’m just an innocent Canadian, without much sense of the politics surrounding the separation of church and state.  I finally realized that one good reason (from the ID point of view, anyway) to avoid making such an argument is that it would reveal that ID is a religious point of view, and hamstring their political operation. 

ID proponents don’t just want ‘space’ for some form of ID in biology, after intelligence has already evolved by natural means.  What they want is a theistic science.  Theism is part of science, they claim, because naturalistic accounts of the origin of life and its subsequent evolution must leave unfilled explanatory gaps.  And it’s this story of unfilled gaps in natural history that they really want taught in the schools.  (Telling any more of their positive story about how the gaps should be filled would make its religious content obvious.  It would also drive a large number of wedges between various factions now cooperating in the ID movement!)  So I think we have no hope of co-opting them.

Comment #10296

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 14, 2004 06:15 PM (e) (s)

Flint:

In either of your scenarios, significant effects could occur in very short time scales (decades to centuries).  But neither is an example of the Baldwin effect to which Gray appeals.  For the Baldwin effect, you have to imagine a change in behaviour.  This change results in a change in relative fitness for different alleles - resulting in different alleles becoming prevalent in the population.  Thus a switch of diet to include a milk (or milk products) for adults will result in the spread of alleles, the lack of which is known as lactose intolerance.  Lactose amongst caucasian Americans is 15%, amongst Masai 60% despite milk having constituted a large part of their diet for over a thousand years.

Comment #10297

Posted by Flint on November 14, 2004 07:09 PM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis:

I guess I’m missing the obvious here. I thought adoption of new practices such as I suggested WERE changes in behavior. Aren’t breeding programs the imposition of a standard of “relative fitness”? Wouldn’t this result in “different alleles becoming prevalent in the population”? I wish I knew more biology.

Bryson Brown:

I think you’d have to look long and far to find anyone who does NOT recognize ID as a religious point of view. Certainly the ID proponents make no secret of their religious motivations, nor do the school board members trying to get ID into the science curriculum. I don’t think any court decision has even given lip service to the notion that ID isn’t religious.

You’re spot on about theistic science. The claim is made (with a straight face, hard as that is to imagine) that only Christians are competent to do good science, apparently because science is a search for answers, and only Christians have those answers to properly guide their science.

As someone named John Davison wrote on the ARN board, “Intelligent Design is self-evident, but only to the objective observer.” Needless to say, objectivity and Christian doctrine are synonymous. Just ask them.

Comment #10299

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on November 14, 2004 07:36 PM (e) (s)

I’m not going to try to figure out what is being debated here or what it has to do with Dover, but I notice Tom Gray seemingly over excited by the Baldwin effect and at the same time complaining that a philosophy book which considers evolution at a very general level is not a biology text (D’oh).

Tom, I recommend that you first of all acquire and read a text on evolution (then you needn’t be concerned that a different sort of book isn’t one).  Then since you like the theoretical side and ‘levels of evolution’, you can go for Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution and Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation .

Enjoy.

Comment #10300

Posted by Bryson Brown on November 14, 2004 08:18 PM (e) (s)

Flint:

There’s a difference between acknowledging a personal religious motivation for supporting ID and acknowledging that ID itself is an intrinsically religious theory.  Taking the second step would put a serious hole in any attempts to put ID on the curriculum for public schools in the U.S. 

But I agree with your point about standards of objectivity.  The Catholic doctrine of Natural law is a similar effort to turn religiously-motivated doctrines into ‘objective’ truths that we all must respect.  Of course, the church turns out to be the authority on what these objective truths are— and anyone who disagrees is ‘diagnosed’ as too prideful (or otherwise corrupted) to see the truth. 

A healthy epistemology of science (and ethics, too) is the remedy here— but it’s a hard sell, since it’s full of subtlties and (far worse) it fails to tell a lot of people what they want to hear.

Comment #10302

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 14, 2004 09:03 PM (e) (s)

Flint:

The new practises you suggest are changes of behaviour.  However, the consequent change in gene frequencies does not come about from natural selection.  In once case it comes about from selective breeding - with selective advantages consequently in the range of 10% or higher.  In the case of genetic engineering, the change of allele frequencies comes about by inserting new alleles into the genome multiple times.  In principle, either of these could fix an allele in a single generation (if generations are discontinuos).  But in fact, neither of these factors have been relevant to the current human genetic makeup.

IN contrast, change of gene frequencies due to the Baldwin effect have probably been quite significant in human evolution - but the relevant changes took place several hundred thousand to several million years ago.  In contrast, events as recent as the invention of agriculture have not had time to result in the fixing of many (or any) alleles in human populations.  Cultural phenomena more ephimeral than events like the invention of agriculture, which is to say, most of the particular content of any distinct culture, are also too ephimeral to register in terms of natural selection.

As I understand it, Tom Gray’s claim is that “the valid insights” of ID can be incorporated into conventional evolutionary theory by pointing out that some intelligent decisions have shaped evolution through the Baldwin effect.  However, because of the slow turn over rate of evolution compared to that of culture, any such shaping is minimal. 

This overlooks the two very obvious points.  First, as stated so well by Bryson Brown, this is not the sort of reconciliation IDists could accept.  Second, there are no valid insights from the ID movement to be incorporated into Neo-Darwinian theory.

Comment #10305

Posted by Flint on November 14, 2004 09:26 PM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis:

I’m still not sure I see the distinction you are drawing, but I’m still pondering it. I do see the distinction between artificial selection (by different means), and natural selection.

Bryson Brown:

My understanding is that the courts, at least, have ruled that ID is a religious doctrine per se, and that any claim that the designer is other than the Christian God is pure smokescreen. But court decisions only last until another court disagrees. My concern is that the ID people, well aware of this, are directing their funding toward getting the “right” judges in place. Only one or two successes, and precedents can be set. I think the cases calculated to set these precedents are already designed and waiting for the appropriate political situation.

Comment #10306

Posted by jay boilswater on November 14, 2004 10:06 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:
I think the cases calculated to set these precedents are already designed and waiting for the appropriate political situation.”

Yep, science trumped by politics, prepare for a “faith based reality” … there’s an oxymoron for you.

Comment #10307

Posted by RBH on November 14, 2004 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis wrote

IN contrast, change of gene frequencies due to the Baldwin effect have probably been quite significant in human evolution - but the relevant changes took place several hundred thousand to several million years ago.  In contrast, events as recent as the invention of agriculture have not had time to result in the fixing of many (or any) alleles in human populations.  Cultural phenomena more ephimeral than events like the invention of agriculture, which is to say, most of the particular content of any distinct culture, are also too ephimeral to register in terms of natural selection.

At least one evolutionary change in humans in the recent past is attributed to the invention of agriculture, and in particular to the invention of intensive dairy farming.  From here:

Lactase deficiency is a classic anthropological example of a genetic trait that has been influenced by cultural factors. There is a relationship between the frequency of lactase deficiency in a population and whether or not the population was involved in intensive dairy farming. Low levels of lactase deficiency are found in European populations with a long history of dairy farming, and highest levels in populations of Asian ancestry who were not dairy farmers. Low levels also occur in other populations that rely extensively on milk in their diet (like the Fulani of Western Africa, and it is believed, Khoi pastoralists of Southern Africa). These numbers suggest that the ability to digest whole milk later in life is selected for in environments where milk is a major source of nutrition and forms an important part of the diet.

RBH

Comment #10310

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 15, 2004 04:16 AM (e) (s)

RBH:

Lactose intolerance is an example I quoted earlier in support of my thesis.  Despite the fact that cattle were domesticated as early as 6500 BC and quickly became widespread, lactose intolerance is still found in around 15% of Caucasian populations.  It stands at 60% amongst the Masai whose diet consists of milk and cattle blood.  Perhaps lactose intolerance will be eliminated from the human gene pool in another 8,000 years, perhaps not.  But that is the sort of timespan we are looking at.  Truly seminal events such as the invention of agriculture, or the invention of writting will have an effect on human genetics through natural selection because the differences they make to our culture are so long lasting - but even for these events they are so recent that they will not have resulted in the fixation of many (if any) alleles.  But the very slowness of the reaction to these seminal events shows that ephemeral events are unlikely to effect allele frequencies in the long term, or very much in the short term.  And by ephimeral I mean such short lived phenomena as the Roman Empire, or Judaism.  A feature uniquely advantageous in the Roman Empire might have risen to 1 or 2% of the Roman population before the collapse of that Empire rendered it neutral or harmfull.  Only features beneficial in a celtic culture, and a Roman Culture, and a Frankish culture, and a Merovingian culture, and Feudal culture, and Renaissance/reformation culture, and a modern French Republic would continue to spread in France over the last 2,500 years (for example), and even such a feature would still be represented in a significant minority of the French population had it started its spread 2,500 years ago.

Comment #10312

Posted by Tom Gray on November 15, 2004 08:42 AM (e) (s)

What I have really been saying is that if intelligent design is to be taught as a scientific theory then it should be taken seriously as a scientific theory and dealt with as such. One only has to ride in an airplane above a populated area to see the effect that intelligence is having on the natural environment. The difference between this observation and that of most proponents and opponents of intelligent design is that it takes into account the nature of intelligence. The discussions that I have see both by propones and opponents of intelligent design is assume that intelligence is some perfect abstract entity that is divorced from the real world. It is some sort of Platonian ideal that is best exemplified in the abstract reasoning of advanced mathematics. There is another more realistic view that intelligence is a property developed by evolution to cope with the real world. The intelligence of Adam Smith’s unseen hand, which is today called swarm intelligence, is an aspect of the intelligence that evolution has developed and uses

Any teaching or exploration of intelligent design should consider just what intelligence is and how intelligence designs. The design mechanisms of intelligence should be explicated. Evolutionary-based intelligence is reshaping the natural environment. It is undoubtedly having an effect on Darwinian evolution. The example of the moth changing colour after the Industrial evolution that is often used as a demonstration of Darwinian evolution is also an example of the effects of Baldwinian and evolutionary-based intelligent design.

One nice thing about this is that a discussion of intelligent design in this manner is compatible with millenarian Christianity. Evangelicals may object to it but millenarian Protestant churches that believe that it is the duty of mankind to prepare the world for Christ’s return will find resonance with it. Co-option of an opponent’s position to find allies is a useful political tactic.

Comment #10315

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 15, 2004 10:56 AM (e) (s)

For Tom Gray,

Not sure if I entirely understand what you’re saying here. Is the definition of “intelligent design” you’re referencing addressing the cumulative results of decisions made by humans, as in “a shift from a hunting to an agricultural society” or the building of major urban settlements? If so, that wouldn’t square very well with what the ID crowd is trying to get accepted as science, would it?

Comment #10316

Posted by Tom Gray on November 15, 2004 12:27 PM (e) (s)

The idea of extending the interpretation of intelligent design that would be taught is to co-opt the effort to teach it as a surrogate for a religious belief.

The use of an intelligent design at the cultural and reflective levels background allows the linking of Darwinian evolution to other branches of inquiry such as media studies and economics. It also allows the examination of the nature of intelligence. It could also be used in a comparative religions class to show the difference between fundamental and millenarian Christianity.

This may not be what the current advocates of intelligent design want but what one wants is not necessarily what one gets.

Comment #10317

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 15, 2004 02:36 PM (e) (s)

Tom Gray:

If the idea is to co-opt the effort to teach intelligent design, it is doomed to failure.  ID strategists would happily allow you to teach the effects of intelligence on the environment under the name of Intelligent Design; and then push to have the “rest of” Intelligent Design taught as well.  I can hear them now:  “Its hardly fair to teach only those aspects of ID without religious implications.  The rest of ID is science as well, and to exclude it because of its religious implications is view point discrimination.”

This is assuming you could effectively coopt the name in the first place - which I doubt.  Their PR machine is too large, and the concepts too disimilar for that to work.

Comment #10318

Posted by rubble on November 15, 2004 03:40 PM (e) (s)

jay boilswater wrote:

Definitive PROOF of ID (at least of bumper stickers).
Note the tiny “legs” of the hapless Darwin as it is devoured
by Truth in this example.

And here we see the difference between Creationists and evolutionists.  Evolutionists say “make love, not war” ;-)

Comment #10319

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 15, 2004 04:59 PM (e) (s)

Rubble, as an atheist evolutionist, I found your example as offensive as I found Jay’s ridiculous.

Comment #10322

Posted by Flint on November 15, 2004 07:14 PM (e) (s)

Personally, I thought rubble’s image was comical. Where can I get one?

Comment #10323

Posted by johnsmith on November 15, 2004 09:20 PM (e) (s)

I recently came across the negative comments on this website regarding the
possible role played by ID in evolutionary theory, and more specifically,
Dr. Meyer’s recently published article on the subject.  When I read this
article,  I found it to be interesting and thought provoking.  In my first
exposure to biochemistry, through my undergraduate-level text book (Voet &
Voet), it was pointed out in the introductory chapter that insight into
fundamental questions related to the origins of life has rested on a
significant level of speculation.  Our views on this subject are shaped by
philosophical considerations, as well as on modern investigations into
evolutionary biology.  Does the central dogma of biochemistry not rest
partially on faith?  That a primordial soup of chemicals evolved to
produce organisms, properly defined as linear polymers of 4 inanimate
nucleotides that direct their own unending reproduction, through
production of protein molecules that serve as the tools for this task. 
This is the world from a biochemist’s perspective, and at its core is a
concept not easily rationalized.

While I did enjoy reading Dr. Meyer’s article, as pointed out in several
rebuttal arguments on this site, much of the evidence marshaled in defense
of his theories rests entirely on personal, biased interpretations of
published reports in areas such as phylogenetics that
are more appropriately interpreted from a neo-Darwinist understanding of
evolution.

  My problem with the reaction to Meyer’s article on this and
other sites is not with the scientific arguments that refute his theories,
but in the condescending tone with which his view of
evolution has been dismissed.  The harshest criticism seems not to have been directed at Meyer himself, but at the journal editor in the “inner sanctum”
of the scientific establishment who may not have funneled the paper through the review process without due dilegence.  I do
agree with most on one issue: there is no room for articles in scientific
journals that rest on unsubstantiated speculative claims.  A more
reputable journal would no doubt have rejected the article out of hand. 
Nevertheless, we should all remember that throughout history, many of the
theories strongly espoused by the scientific establishment of the day have
not necessarily stood the test of time - it’s hard to imagine that history
won’t repeat itself.  I doubt any of the views put forward by Meyer
will usurp the neo-Darwinist views defended by modern evolutionary
biologists. However, I do not believe that current evolutionary theories
regarding the origins of life are unassailable, and beyond philosophical
debate.  After reading some of the reaction to this article I can’t help but feel that many scientists take themselves, and their views, a little too seriously on this issue.

Comment #10324

Posted by jay boilswater on November 16, 2004 01:19 AM (e) (s)

Yes rubble, is that a photoshop or can they be bought,  I want one too.
And Tom, as an agnostic retired engineer, interested in evolution, and all natural history, I would say:
Lighten up dude! I don’t advocate the thing, I thought it was so ludricrous that it was funny. And it is!
Johnsmith, let me retort, evolutionary theory makes no claim (that I know of) about the origins of life. 
Your argument seems far afield and a bit disconected.  I am interested in the “thought experiment” that David Raup has proposed to explain PE but it don’t follow that I am gung ho to embrace astrology.

Comment #10325

Posted by jay boilswater on November 16, 2004 01:41 AM (e) (s)

Flint
Found it at:

Valiant Enterprises Inc.
PO Box 14095
Tumwater, WA 98511-4095

http://valiante.plugnpay.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/scstore/sh…

Procreation car plaque
6.95

I can hardly wait, gonna stick it on my Ducati, hope it’s not too big.

Comment #10326

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 16, 2004 02:46 AM (e) (s)

johnsmit writes

However, I do not believe that current evolutionary theories
regarding the origins of life are unassailable, and beyond philosophical
debate.

That’s nice.  Is that what your strawman believed before you beat him up?

After reading some of the reaction to this article I can’t help but feel that many scientists take themselves, and their views, a little too seriously on this issue.

So true.  If only we could learn to relax like Doc Meyer and not worry about accuracy and making comprehensible adult arguments, science would be so much more fun!  Even really ignorant people could play as long as they said stuff that sounded scientific.  It’d be like a science version of the U.S. government.

Comment #10327

Posted by Tom Curtis on November 16, 2004 04:34 AM (e) (s)

Jay:

And Tom, as an agnostic retired engineer, interested in evolution, and all natural history, I would say:
Lighten up dude! I don’t advocate the thing, I thought it was so ludricrous that it was funny. And it is!

Jay, the truth fish eating the Darwin amphibian is so ridiculous as to be funny.  The Darwin amphibian fucking the Jesus fish is pretty much as offensive as you can get.  The Jesus fish is not an arbitrary symbol for Christians.  In fact it was probably the first Christian symbol, preceding even the cross.  This symbolism comes from a Greek Acrostic:

Iesus
CHristos
THeou
Yios
Soter,

which formed the greek word for fish.  The meaning is:

Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour.

This is the core of Christian belief.  The Darwin Amphibian fucking the Jesus fish is then a graphic, hostile and offensive statement of Philip Johnson’s thesis that the battle is not between scientific theories, but between a materialistic philosophy which is implacably hostile to Christianity and the Christianity it opposes.  Christians seeing such a symbol will rightly interpret it as meaning that Christianity and evolution are in an implacable war, and that the owner of the symbol holds Christianity and Christians in complete contempt.

That is not a view point I can accept, or keep silent about.  Telling me to “lighten up” just tells me you have deeply skewed sensibilities on the subject.

Comment #10328

Posted by Flint on November 16, 2004 08:26 AM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis:

I second the “lighten up” recommendation. Where you see implacable hostility, I see the cross-breeding of competing viewpoints, which frequently produces fertile offspring. Perhaps for some of us sex symbolizes pleasant optimism, and for others it’s a dominance game. This image may be a sort of Rorschach test.

johnsmith:

While you’re right that the possible mechanisms along the path to the first life-as-we-know-it are certainly speculative and we have as yet only tantalizing hints, this lack of knowledge doesn’t necessarily need to be viewed as an open door with a welcome mat inviting faith to enter. Faith, for the faithful, informs everything they see, do, and think. It doesn’t “bunch up” into high concentrations where we are ignorant, and spread invisibly thin where our knowledge is most secure.

The presumption that all of reality is assisted by divine guidance is comforting to many, and beyond the ability of science to speak about in any way. The presumption that all natural phenomena can ultimately be explained by natural causes (even if we know nearly nothing about those causes today) is necessary if the scientific method is to be worth applying to anything. Meyer et. al. pretty clearly wish to place a great deal of what science now investigates, off limits to that method, because the evidence collected leads most logically to conclusions incompatible with one sect’s beliefs about how the natural world “ought to be”.

The philosophical debate isn’t really about how life started, but about whether people should even be exposed to non-religious speculations, when (their) religion already has the absolute truth in black and white. In studying evolution and abiogenesis, science has barged into the innermost sanctum of that belief system, and is irreverently weighing and measuring and shining bright lights, rather than properly worshipping in the darkness.

Comment #10332

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 16, 2004 01:17 PM (e) (s)

Tom writes

Christians seeing such a symbol will rightly interpret it as meaning that Christianity and evolution are in an implacable war, and that the owner of the symbol holds Christianity and Christians in complete contempt.

Tom, your confusing that cartoon with this symbol:

  x
  x
  x
x x x x
  x

Just fyi: Aleister Crowley is to Phillip Johnson what Einstein is to Bill Dembski.  Don’t mess with the bull or you’ll get the horns.

Comment #10338

Posted by jay boilswater on November 16, 2004 06:06 PM (e) (s)

Well Tom I hate to argue, but the TRUTH eating the tiny darwin, while ridiculous is
pretty offensive to anyone with two hemispheres to rub together.  Not being a christian
I don’t find the other symbol any more offensive, in fact I have one on order!
I find I quite enjoy offending the current fundementalist christians, especially since
it is evident they either do not know, or do not care what Jesus was actually talking about!
As far a “skewed sensibilities” well I don’t know quite how to respond, except
to sing.
  Because…
  Every sperm is sacred,
  Every sperm is great,
  If a sperm is wasted,
  God gets quite irate.

  Let the heathen spill theirs,
  On the dusty ground,
  God shall make them pay for,
  Each sperm that’s not found.
My apologies to Mr Python, and the Ape Ejaculate Thread.

Comment #10339

Posted by Jan on November 16, 2004 06:21 PM (e) (s)

For those of you who do not know, here is what the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

When a teacher tells her class that the universe appears to have an intelligent design, is that teacher establishing a religion? Of course not! The liberal, socialist, secular, usually atheistic agenda that is being promoted in our government schools has convinced a generation of people that the first amendment will not allow the name of God to be voiced in public schools, but that was never the intention of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers only intended that we not establish a national religion that we reguire our citizens to become affiliated with or that we not force them to worship any particular deity. If this error is not corrected soon, it is going to be too late to correct it.

Comment #10340

Posted by Flint on November 16, 2004 06:46 PM (e) (s)

Jan:

So which god(s) would you like your teachers to say created the universe? Allah? Thor? Wotan? The whole Greek pantheon? Should the teacher painstakingly detail a few thousand creation myths (and there are that many), giving each one equal time and credibility? What instruction do you suggest we drop, to make the time for this exercise?

The liberal, socialist, secular, usually atheistic agenda

Ooh, ouch, my sensitive ears find such cursing highly offensive. Can’t you limit your profanity to words of four letters like the rest of us?

Comment #10341

Posted by Great White Wonder on November 16, 2004 06:54 PM (e) (s)

Jan, your founding fathers kept black people as slaves.

So screw your founding fathers.  If they wanted to prevent forced worship, they could easily have said so.  Apparently they wanted to go quite a bit further than that.

In any event, nothing in the Constitution requires that we step inside the backwards and sleazy slave-holding minds of the founders.

The principle that government and religion should not mix has obvious benefits that attach even to dim-witted rubes such as yourself.

Why not be thankful that you see a conciliatory reference to a deity on your currency?  As a citizen of the United States who strongly believes in the First Amendment, that is a gigantic concession on my part.  Now, please return to your warm pew and enjoy your cookie.  Your preacher is about to tell you why dinosaurs should more accurately be referred to as Jesus Horses.

Comment #10343

Posted by Dagobert Steinitz on November 16, 2004 07:23 PM (e) (s)

When a teacher tells her class that the universe appears to have an intelligent design, is that teacher establishing a religion?

When a teacher tells her class that the universe appears to have an intelligent designer, and <i>Mohammed is his prophet</i>, is that teacher establishing a religion?

Is that what you want? You want teachers teaching the kids their religious beliefs as fact? All of them, or just the ones you like? Do you have kids in the public school system? You deserve to have one with a Hindu teacher who believes like you do… So they can come home telling you how the universe appears to have a lot of Karma: they learned it at school.

Comment #10345

Posted by Jan on November 16, 2004 08:14 PM (e) (s)

I think that Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and all named and unnamed are able to look at our awesome world and see that there is an intelligence to the design and an order to our universe. We would have to be quite stupid not to be able to tell that. It is quite wonderful and magnificent.

If you live in the USA, then you are governed by the constitution as it is the law of our land. Regardless of what our founding fathers did or did not do in their personal lives and regardless of mistakes they made or did not make, the constitution is our governing document. It has served us well. The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Comment #10348

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 16, 2004 09:07 PM (e) (s)

Jan,

You said, “I think that Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and all named and unnamed are able to look at our awesome world and see that there is an intelligence to the design and an order to our universe. We would have to be quite stupid not to be able to tell that. It is quite wonderful and magnificent.”

Whenever you’re ready to back that claim up with credible evidence -  we’re waiting. Until then, don’t be so cocksure or arrogant about it. I could as easily accuse you of stupidity for falling for that bullshit. Your Faith is yours, and respected - until you try to present it as objective reality. The ball’s in your court - go for it.

Comment #10350

Posted by johnsmith on November 16, 2004 09:32 PM (e) (s)

Jay Boil:

“…let me retort, evolutionary theory makes no claim (that I know of) about the origins of life..”

It doesn’t?  Then what’s the evolution vs. creationist debate all about?  It don’t follow. 

Flint:

“…Faith, for the faithful, informs everything they see, do, and think…”

“…but about whether people should even be exposed to non-religious speculations, when (their) religion already has the absolute truth in black and white….”

I think you’re oversimplifying what faith and religion is all about.  I don’t believe most religious practitioners think they have it all figured out – nor are the philosophical questions that man has debated about through history laid out in “black and white” in religious texts (unless you take these allegorical works literally I suppose).  There is room for question and debate in any open religion, scientific or otherwise.

Dagobert

Why is it you assume that teaching of religion involves indoctrination, rather than offering important insight into human history, culture and ethics.  Should we abandon teaching art, theatre, Greek Mythology etc. as well?

Comment #10352

Posted by Flint on November 16, 2004 09:54 PM (e) (s)

johnsmith:

It doesn’t?  Then what’s the evolution vs. creationist debate all about?  It don’t follow.

Technically, evolution is NOT a creation myth competing with Genesis. Evolution is limited to how one life form changes to another over the course of time. It states that these changes happen because the evidence indicates this, and it proposes mechanisms that might be the cause of the changes.

HOW life got started is an entirely different scientific topic called abiogenesis. This topic, though there has been some preliminary investigation, is still mostly philosophical. No theory of evolution makes even the slightest suggestion as to where the first life came from.

The source of confusion is that the Genesis myth says “God created all kinds of life as we see them” and in one fell swoop lumps the creation in with the kinds. Believers in creationism therefore expect theories of evolution to do the same, but they don’t.

nor are the philosophical questions that man has debated about through history laid out in “black and white” in religious texts (unless you take these allegorical works literally I suppose).

Yes, I suppose too. Creationists are, as designated by the term itself, those who take these allegorical works literally. If they did not, sites like this wouldn’t exist.

There is room for question and debate in any open religion, scientific or otherwise.

There are no “scientific religions”, and there can’t be. The two have no conceptual overlap. But I agree there is room for question and debate about everything.

Why is it you assume that teaching of religion involves indoctrination, rather than offering important insight into human history, culture and ethics.

There is a difference between teaching religion, and teaching ABOUT religion. Saying “here’s god’s truth” is qualitatively different from saying “here is what some subcultures believe; here (by contrast) is what others believe.” Anyone whose presentation takes for granted that there even ARE any gods, is indoctrinating.

Comment #10353

Posted by jay boilswater on November 16, 2004 10:32 PM (e) (s)

johnsmith wrote:
“‘evolutionary theory makes no claim (that I know of) about the origins of life..’
It doesn’t?  Then what’s the evolution vs. creationist debate all about?  It don’t follow.”

Well, I will start by saying that, evolutionary theory makes no claim (that I know of) about the origins of life.
What I mean is what I just said, the initial genisis of life is not addressed by the theory of evolution, the theory has nothing to say about it.  There is only one ‘data point’ for life (so far) and what we see here on the Earth is IT. 
Darwin was concerned with the distribution and evolution of life that we currently see, the reasons that the world looks as it does.
The evolution vs. creationist debate is (in my opinion) all about politics, religion and perceptions of morality…not to mention a strange American fixation. If you want to go back to first principles then the cambrian explosion is far too recent. 
If you insist on hunting down God, then 4 seconds before the first 3 seconds of the big bang would be a good place to start.
As far as I know this is fertile ground and unencumbered by any theories that I am aware of.

Comment #10354

Posted by johnsmith on November 16, 2004 10:58 PM (e) (s)

Flint:

Once again, you’ve oversimpflied my argument and those made by most, but granted not all, who might not be so quick to rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design.

I’m familiar with the general scope of evolution and what the theory entails – but the core of the intelligent design debate lies at the boundary of what evolution and our scientific understanding of prehistoric biology has failed adequately explain.  The logical course of a debate on Intelligent Design necessarily involves a discussion on the origins of life. 

You say:  HOW life got started is an entirely different scientific topic called abiogenesis. This topic, though there has been some preliminary investigation, is still mostly philosophical. No theory of evolution makes even the slightest suggestion as to where the first life came from.

One who might advocate or be willing to entertain the idea of Intelligent Design is merely pointing out what you’ve just stated.  Or put in another way:  that modern science can not explain important, fundamental questions relating to our existence – maybe because there is no reasonable answer beyond faith in a “being” that created a framework upon which evolution occurred.  These issues are at the heart of the creationist vs. evolution (origins of life) debate.

Intelligent design is not an argument formulated on creationism by your definition (i.e. a view of life based on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis).  Obviously there is no framework for such a debate with those who believe in Noah’s arc.

You say:

There is a difference between teaching religion, and teaching ABOUT religion. Saying “here’s god’s truth” is qualitatively different from saying “here is what some subcultures believe; here (by contrast) is what others believe.” Anyone whose presentation takes for granted that there even ARE any gods, is indoctrinating.

I don’t differentiate between teaching religion or ABOUT religion.  Religious education doesn’t necessarily involve imploring: here’s the truth (i.e. indoctrination), nor should it.

Comment #10357

Posted by Traffic Demon on November 17, 2004 12:39 AM (e) (s)

“This symbolism comes from a Greek Acrostic:

Iesus
CHristos
THeou
Yios
Soter”

Damn Greeks thought they were so smart when they couldn’t even speak English!

Comment #10359

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on November 17, 2004 04:22 AM (e) (s)

From a comment I made at Carl Zimmer’s blog:

I’d like to make an observation on “intelligent design” in general. ID claims are aimed at obtaining a concession that evolutionary processes are insufficient to account for observed biological phenomena. After that, ID advocates hope that people will simply fill in with an “intelligent designer” of their preference to cover the gap. ID arguments are all of the negative variety: because evolution can’t do this, you must accept that an “intelligent designer” did.

So, how do ID advocates wend their way toward finding evolutionary insufficiency? Do they identify phenomena with good evidential records of their origin and find that no natural mechanisms are able to cover the situation? No, they do not. ID advocates identify the systems that have the least evidence that can bear upon just how they might have arisen and whack on those. If evolutionary biologists don’t have the evidence to work with, they certainly can’t generate the “detailed, testable pathways” that ID advocates […] claim it is their burden to produce. This is such a weak and pathetic strategy that the term I use for Michael Behe’s arguments now is “God of the crevices”. You see, Behe’s claim to fame is to have taken the old young-earth creationist bleat of “what good is half a wing?” and bring it into the modern era of molecular biology, reborn as, “what good is half a flagellum?” Biochemistry, Behe says, is the basement floor, and there is no further place to go. Thus, the gaps Behe goes on about have a bottom, and are crevices.

Back in 2001, I was in a panel with William Dembski, and pointed out that the only way for ID to progress was to take up those case where there was evidence at hand. Things like the impedance-matching system of the mammalian middle ear and the Krebs citric acid cycle. Michael Behe was sitting in the audience at the time. Have ID advocates taken up those sort of systems for analysis? Not on your life.

“Intelligent design” advocates use Behe’s “irreducible complexity” and Dembski’s “specified complexity” as arguments to convince people to disregard theories which have some evidential support, and force acceptance of conjectures with no evidential support. It’s a good trick, that.

Comment #10377

Posted by Flint on November 17, 2004 08:41 AM (e) (s)

johnsmith:

If you make simple arguments, you get simple explanations. I don’t know what you’re looking for.

the core of the intelligent design debate lies at the boundary of what evolution and our scientific understanding of prehistoric biology has failed adequately explain.

Who gets to say how much is “adequate”? By observation, the bar of “adequate” is set unreachably high by those who believe in supernatural forces. Also, when evidence is admittedly weak and indirect, should we say “we don’t know yet” or should we say “it happened by magic”? The former is honest; the second at least gives the appearance of filling a gap in our knowledge, while actually explaining nothing.

The logical course of a debate on Intelligent Design necessarily involves a discussion on the origins of life.

What’s to discuss? Nobody knows how life started. Some preliminary studies have been suggestive, but no more than that. So the two sides to the debate can be summarized pretty succinctly: The ID side says “I believe magic is the only possible origin; prove me wrong.” The scientific side says “We don’t know yet, BUT we’ve never had to ring in magic to explain anything in the natural universe yet, and we see no reason to start here.” So there we stand: The ID people have the answer before we start (because they cut corners and simply MADE IT UP), the science people hold out hope for increasingly better understandings as studies generate possibilities.

modern science can not explain important, fundamental questions relating to our existence – maybe because there is no reasonable answer beyond faith in a “being” that created a framework upon which evolution occurred.

You are correct that science has not yet explained (NOTE the difference between “has not yet explained” and “can not explain”) some questions about our existence. Whether these questions are important is a judgment call, but let’s say they are. But why throw your hands into the air already and say “I need an answer RIGHT NOW, even if I have to make one up”? The only reason to do so, is if you interpret “can not explain” to mean “is inherently incapable of explaining, so our only option is to make up whatever appeals to us.” Why not interpret it to mean “does not yet have a well supported explanation, but is working on it so be patient”?

If you are to be consistent, you’ll find that your haste causes more problems than it solves — by postulating a “being” who POOF created everything, you must now explain the origin of that being. And that’s MUCH harder. Most ID proponents refuse to address the question “where did your god come from originally?” as though running away from this problem solves it.

Intelligent design is not an argument formulated on creationism by your definition (i.e. a view of life based on a literal interpretation of the book of genesis).

Actually, there are many flavors of intelligent design. The YEC version is probably the most common, and THAT version is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. But ID tries to be a “big tent” by being deliberately hazy, saying only that life required and/or requires something beyond natural processes, and lets believers in just about any deities fill in the blanks with their preferred version.

I don’t differentiate between teaching religion or ABOUT religion.  Religious education doesn’t necessarily involve imploring: here’s the truth (i.e. indoctrination), nor should it.

Chuckle. You just contradicted yourself! You said you don’t differentiate, and then promptly differentiated. And the distinction remains real and important. I agree religious education should not presume the existence of any gods, and should present a wide range of contrasting beliefs without prejudice. And this presentation should be made in classes intended for the purpose, which are NOT science classes.

Comment #10379

Posted by Dagobert Steinitz on November 17, 2004 09:13 AM (e) (s)

Why is it you assume that teaching of religion involves indoctrination, rather than offering important insight into human history, culture and ethics.  Should we abandon teaching art, theatre, Greek Mythology etc. as well?

johnsmith… I don’t assume that. I was replying to someone who was suggesting it was appropriate for teachers to teach their religious opinion about intelligent design in the universe as science.

Comparative religion and religious history are fine by me.

Comment #10380

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on November 17, 2004 09:42 AM (e) (s)

Wesley wrote:

“It’s a good trick.”

I agree! It’s a fabulous strategy, and thus I think we can expect more of the same for the several few years.  Research is expensive, but marketing books makes money.  The wedgies have a well conceived strategy and they are carrying it out very effectively. 

I think the anti-Darwin campaign versus doing positive ID research is the way to go for now, both scientifically and politically.  We call that approach in logic, “PROOF BY CONTRADICTION”.

I think Paul Gross was right on the mark in proclaiming the success of the wedge.  I note that, house minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, after John Kerry’s loss said:

“The Republicans .. had an election about wedge issues in our country”.

Because of the lack of research, I think the Discovery Institute actually opposed the teaching of ID at Dover.  They found it’s far more effective to “teach the controversy”, like in Ohio, but have ID theory remain immune from scrutiny.  Let the students fill in the blanks :-).

I think that’s the best strategy for the wedge, highlight the problems with Darwinism, but keep ID beyond examination.  So in that regard, I think the strategy in Ohio is the model strategy.

The climate for ID will become more favorable with Bush (a creationist) appointing Supreme Court justices and and several federal judges.  The controversy will be taught eventually in all schools, and evolution will be confronted in every class room in the United States, while at the same time ID remains above scrutiny. 

Beautiful strategy! 

Salvador
PS
I, as a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) don’t want liberal NEA teachers teaching creationism improperly.  Therefore, “teach the controversy” is the best strategy for the YECs as well as the IDists.

Comment #10383

Posted by Flint on November 17, 2004 10:53 AM (e) (s)

We call that approach in logic, “PROOF BY CONTRADICTION”.

Sigh. No, we don’t. Proof by contradiction works by assuming a theorem is true, and logically demonstrating that this assumption leads to a contradiction. The conclusion is that the theorem is false.

So we say “Assume A. Now show that this causes a contradicton. Therefore A is false.” What Salvador is doing is saying “Assume B is true. Now try to show that A is false. I have done so to my satisfaction, therefore B is true!” This may make Salvador happy, but it is not proof by contradiction.

Comment #10384

Posted by Bob Maurus on November 17, 2004 10:55 AM (e) (s)

So, did Salvador have an epiphany moment somewhere on the road to Jerusalem? Or has some coyote stolen his identity? And how about The Cosmic Coyote as the ultimate Designer?

Comment #10385

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on November 17, 2004 11:36 AM (e)