Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Peter McGrath on April 26, 2005 12:45 PM
- Jason Spaceman on February 12, 2005 02:10 AM
- ts on February 11, 2005 11:48 PM
- ts on February 11, 2005 11:41 PM
- ts on February 11, 2005 11:24 PM
- Randy B on February 11, 2005 08:30 PM
- Randy B. on February 11, 2005 08:25 PM
- slpage on February 11, 2005 02:33 PM
- Alex Merz on February 10, 2005 10:43 PM
- Jim Harrison on February 10, 2005 09:37 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Nick Matzke on February 7, 2005 03:21 AM
An editorial by Mike Behe is in the Monday New York Times — you remember, that liberal legacy media we were all supposed to forget about.
None of the claims are new, but at least the text is (commonly not the case in ID op-eds). The op-ed is short, so my reply is interspersed.
Design for Living
By MICHAEL J. BEHEPublished: February 7, 2005
Bethlehem, Pa. — IN the wake of the recent lawsuits over the teaching of Darwinian evolution, there has been a rush to debate the merits of the rival theory of intelligent design. As one of the scientists who have proposed design as an explanation for biological systems, I have found widespread confusion about what intelligent design is and what it is not.
First, what it isn’t: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.(Behe, "Design for Living")
Funny, so does the Discovery Institute, the major institution promoting ID:
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
How could anyone possibly get confused about whether intelligent design is science or religion?
Behe continues,
For example, a critic recently caricatured intelligent design as the belief that if evolution occurred at all it could never be explained by Darwinian natural selection and could only have been directed at every stage by an omniscient creator. That’s misleading. Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Quite a few official ID proponents seem to doubt minor facts like the common ancestry of humans and apes — for instance, Stephen Meyer (DI C[R]SC president), Paul Nelson (YEC), and William Dembski. ID proponents usually won’t say it, but ID arguments, if true, amount to special creationism.
Let’s see what Of Pandas and People, the intelligent design book they are recommending in Dover, Pennsylvannia, says about intelligent design:
“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.”
(Of Pandas and People, as quoted in Ken Miller's Pandas critique)
Continuing, Behe writes,
And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Phillip Johnson, on the other hand, once said,
“Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.” (American Family Radio, Jan 10, 2003 broadcast, in which Johnson “discusses his book The Right Questions, encouraging Christians to actively debate issues of eternal value.”
(quoted at NMSR's ID quotes)
We continue with the Mount Rushmore argument, which has a long and distinguished history in creationism.
Rather, the contemporary argument for intelligent design is based on physical evidence and a straightforward application of logic. The argument for it consists of four linked claims. The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Compare this to this 1984 article by Old-Earth Creationist (OEC*) Norman Geisler:
…natural forces can account for the Grand Canyon, but these operational laws do not explain the faces formed on Mount Rushmore! The only kind of cause we ever observe forming things like Mount Rushmore is intelligence. This is our uniform experience. Hence, the scientific principle of uniformity points to an intelligent source for Mount Rushmore. But since even the simplest form of life conveys vastly more information than does Mount Rushmore, it is not unscientific to postulate an intelligent cause of life.
Not surprisingly, Geisler was arguing that “creation-science” is science and not religion. We know how that turned out.
Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
There are, however, some key differences between real designs and biological “designs”: human designs serve human purposes: Mount Rushmore was designed to honor the founding fathers, and to play to Teddy Roosevelt’s ego. We don’t find Mount Rushmores in biology, we find phenomena such as mimicry and camouflage. The purpose of “designs” like mimicry is clearly to mislead other “designs”, namely eyes and brains. Another difference is that while human designs are commonly fashioned from scratch, biological adaptations are generally modifications of structures with different functions. This is particularly true for highly complex adaptations.
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: “It wasn’t really designed. Not really.”)
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Imagine a scientist ignoring the obvious differences between human designs and biological adaptations — oh, wait, we’ve got Behe right here!
The resemblance of parts of life to engineered mechanisms like a watch is enormously stronger than what Reverend Paley imagined. In the past 50 years modern science has shown that the cell, the very foundation of life, is run by machines made of molecules. There are little molecular trucks in the cell to ferry supplies, little outboard motors to push a cell through liquid.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Modified AAA ATPases (dyneins) to ferry supplies, modified secretions systems to push cells through liquid…
In 1998 an issue of the journal Cell was devoted to molecular machines, with articles like “The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines” and “Mechanical Devices of the Spliceosome: Motors, Clocks, Springs and Things.” Referring to his student days in the 1960’s, Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote that “the chemistry that makes life possible is much more elaborate and sophisticated than anything we students had ever considered.” In fact, Dr. Alberts remarked, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory with an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. He emphasized that the term machine was not some fuzzy analogy; it was meant literally.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
It’s not as if Darwin was ignorant of machines in biology. He was actually keenly aware of them. Right after The Origin of Species was published, he wrote a whole book on the complex machine-like devices in orchid flowers. He did it as a direct rebuttal — some say a parody — to the Paleyian machine argument. This book is required reading for any informed discussion of the design argument, but is never discussed, let alone rebutted, by Behe or his fans.
Although an organ may not have been originally formed for some special purpose, if it now serves for this end we are justified in saying that it is specially contrived for it. On the same principle, if a man were to make a machine for some special purpose, but were to use old wheels, springs, and pulleys, only slightly altered, the whole machine, with all its parts, might be said to be specially contrived for that purpose. Thus throughout nature almost every part of each living being has probably served, in a slightly modified condition, for diverse purposes, and has acted in the living machinery of many ancient and distinct specific forms.
(Darwin (1862) Orchid book)
Heck, Gould cited Darwin’s orchid work in the very same essay where he made the panda’s thumb famous.
For citations of discussions of Darwin’s work on orchids, and cooption leading to the evolution of “machines”, see the EvoWiki pages on Orchid flowers and citations of change-of-function. This kind of thing — the actual evolutionary theory on the origin of complex structures — is really the only thing that the ID folks should be talking about. Cooption won’t go away just because they ignore it. The ID folks aren’t really even in the right ballpark yet.
The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn’t involve intelligence.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
This assumes that “IDdidit” is a “good explanation.” One might as well just say, “poof”. In fact, Behe once admitted that his explanation amounts to a “puff of smoke.”
Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists’ confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Behe is ignoring in inconvient pile of studies on e.g. the evolution of the immune system.
Scientists skeptical of Darwinian claims include many who have no truck with ideas of intelligent design, like those who advocate an idea called complexity theory, which envisions life self-organizing in roughly the same way that a hurricane does, and ones who think organisms in some sense can design themselves.
The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it’s important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.
The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it’s a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
So is the flatness of the earth, and the idea that it stands still. Speaking of ducks, searching Google Scholar on “Anatidae evolution” gets hundreds of hits, while “Anatidae ‘intelligent design’” just gets a big goose egg.
Still, some critics claim that science by definition can’t accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
The ones who are on the ball note that the ID movement is based on systematic avoidance of the relevant scientific literature.
But we can’t settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Good thing the “designs” we find in biology have systematic differences from Mount Rushmore-like designs.
Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don’t bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
“Many” scientists meaning, apparently, “the same handful the ID movement has had for the last decade, who have had no luck convincing the scientific community, and have therefore taken to politics to get their views into the schools.”
Regarding the polls, at least 30-40% of the public says they think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, a position that Behe admits is scientifically ludicrous. This is where ID gets most of the support that it has.
If schools taught beliefs in proportion to what the polls say people believe, (1) that would pretty much defeat the purpose of education, and (2) we’d have to give good chunks of time to UFOs, homeopathy, psychics, and all of the other forms of pseudoscience that do well in polls.
And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
(Behe, "Design for Living")
Designing eyes, and then designing animals that variously resemble leaves, rocks, lichens, snow, poisonous animals, and bird droppings, all in order to subvert the carefully designed eye? Designing flagella and type III secretion systems to avoid and subvert the designed immune system? Seems pretty messy to me.
* I originally misdescribed Geisler as a Young-Earth Creationist (YEC). This appears not to be the case according to his deposition in McLean. See comment #15562. Thanks to Michael Buratovich for the correction.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/794
Comment #15105
Posted by FL on February 7, 2005 07:08 AM (e) (s)
Of Pandas and People, as quoted in Ken Miller’s Pandas critique
“As quoted in Ken Miller’s Pandas critique?” Hmmm.
Hate to bring this up again, but is there some reason why people around here can’t afford to buy the book and read it for themselves?
*******************
Trying to claim that ID is “religion” on the basis of the DI Wedge document is plain ole bogus. Somewhat predictable, but still bogus.
For example, when the DI says, “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions,” please note that they said “replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
Nothing was said about replacing anything with Christian and theistic claims in and of themselves. Their stated intention is to stay with science.
You may be skeptical of that intention, but you cannot rewrite the Wedge paper to alter what they clearly and openly said.
Just as it is okay for evolutionists that their “science” be consonant with atheism, materialism and agnosticism, (see the writings of Richard Dawkins or SJ Gould if you need some clear examples), so it is equally okay for an alternative “science” to be offered that is consonant with theism and Christianity.
Moreover, (once again), as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific just because the people doing the proposing happen to have religious motivations.
Does Phillip Johnson have religious motivations for supporting ID? Sure, he himself makes that clear, talking about re-introducing “the reality of God” before the academic world and into schools.
How about Wm. Dembski? Sure, anybody who reads his chapter “Science and Theology in Mutual Support” from his 1999 book already knows that.
(In fact, as opposed to people like the late SJ Gould and his NOMA quarantine gig, people like Dembski are offering a breath of fresh air by helping establish a positive, fruitful alternative—the “mutual support model”—to the ages-old question of the relationship between science and theology.)
But that’s where Ruse’s dictum comes in. For example, you might not agree with Johnson, you might hate Johnson’s guts for that matter, but Johnson’s stated personal motivations concerning the re-introduction of “the reality of God” via the rise of the intelligent design hypothesis have nothing to do with whether or not the ID hypothesis is science or not-science, according to Ruse’s dictum.
And Ruse’s dictum is something I’ve never seen you evolutionists refute, here at PT.
Further, it was established from an earlier thread a few months ago (I can’t remember which one, I’m sorry), that ID in its simple 3-point form given by Dembski is not inherently religious,
(or at least no evolutionist at PT was able to show that it was).
Thus I conclude that Behe’s quotation, “And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator,” is quite true.
That pretty much covers the bases, then. Evolutionists have simply, honestly failed (and continue to fail) to show that ID is “religion” instead of science.
FL
Comment #15107
Posted by Randy on February 7, 2005 07:10 AM (e) (s)
Nick you point out the biggest problem in dealing with ID. ID advocates spout off with sound bites and it takes pages of rebuttal to counter them point by point. We need sound bites too.
Comment #15108
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 7, 2005 07:41 AM (e) (s)
NO FL, a theory is scientific if i) it integrates and explains our observations and ii) is in principle disprovable. Standards good enough for the scientific community. ID still has to perform on the first criterion (and stand scrutiny from the scientific community, just as any other scientific theory etc.), but fails miserably on the second, [b]ergo[/] it is not scientific. That is actually enough for serious scientists to stay away from it…
Well, I guess there will still be room for another round of explanations of the same old same old…
Later,
/The Rev
Comment #15110
Posted by Adam Marczyk on February 7, 2005 07:52 AM (e) (s)
Moreover, (once again), as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific just because the people doing the proposing happen to have religious motivations.
That’s true. However, a proposed hypothesis is most definitely unscientific if the people doing the proposing suggest that the mechanism by which it works is a miraculous suspension of the laws of nature. Do ID advocates have any proposal to offer that does not involve such intervention?
Comment #15114
Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 08:12 AM (e) (s)
Behe is, of course, without a doubt, correct in everything he wrote in that article. ID has been maligned by a horde of intellectually dishonest academic elitists. Any of your own that dare to use common sense and empirical evaluation of evidence (or lack thereof) supporting (or falsifying) the all-powerful mechanism of mutation + natural selection are ridiculed, made into pariahs, their careers ruined. It is little wonder that so few will say with they think in this arena. Fewer than those with the first name Steve actually have a dog in the hunt so they remain silent. Glasnost came to the Soviet Union but has yet to arrive on American university campuses when it comes to the Church of Darwin.
That neo-Darwinian ideologues are in a state of discombobululation over the ID movement is quite understandable. I’d be discombobulated too, not knowing whether to first call my lawyer to sue a public school or wind my blindly made watch, if my most cherished beliefs were being systematically disemboweled in front of a cheering public.
Freud, Marx, and Darwin. The three pillars of western modernism. Two frauds down and one to go. It shan’t be long now.
Comment #15115
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 7, 2005 08:25 AM (e) (s)
DaveScot trolled:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Freud, Marx, Darwin…
…forgetting about anti-Darwinist Trofim Lysenko, the true American Patriot of his time!
Seriously, Behe´s claims are either i) scientific and stand up to scientific scrutiny (not so) and be integrated into current scientific theory (therefore not) or replacing it (not so either), ii) scientific but fail to explain anything (check, by a very large margin) and should be rejected (current verdict seems to be precisely that), or iii) unscientific, thus meriting no interest from serious scientists.
Comment #15117
Posted by SteveF on February 7, 2005 08:36 AM (e) (s)
According the the DI, 300 scientists are sceptical of Darwinism. According the Dave Scott each and every single one of them has had their career ruined by some sort of shadowy and ill defined (surprise surprise) academic elite.
Care to document your claims? Or was that statement completely and utterly made up.
Comment #15118
Posted by David Heddle on February 7, 2005 08:40 AM (e) (s)
I have no real dog in this fight, for the evidence of design in cosmology is so much more compelling than in biology that this is all “in the noise.” I only stop by because I find it amusing when the fundamentalists on this blog get their panties all bunched up.
And you are fundamentalists. At least in my opinion. To me, the most striking features of fundamentalists, in evidence throughout this blog, are
the refusal to engage in meaningful debate, often by resorting to ad hominem attacks (this blog is a world leader in ad hominem tactics, I have never seen, since middle school, such frequent use of arguing by calling one’s opponents “stupid, crackpots, idiots, morons, etc.”)
Seeing their various opponents as mere manifestations of a larger, evil conspiracy. You guys are more adept than Hillary at this.
Elitism, in the form of “I know what is right and important for you, even if you don’t.” In spite of the fact that students have reported that they just laughed at the textbook stickers, you have a fundamentalist compulsion to protect them. You treat them, for their own good I’m sure, as if they were feeble minded. I am still waiting for someone on this blog to admit that he or she is stupid enough that, if that sticker had been on their high school biology text, they would have ended up teaching YEC at Liberty University.
The willingness to sacrifice one’s own principles for a “greater good.” I have read many comments on this blog regarding the sticker controversy that could be summarized as: Although I’m all for democracy, in this case I don’t care if the majority of the citizens in a district want ID mentioned in the classroom. And a variant, along the lines of normally I would want a judge to direct a school district’s curriculum or policies, but in this case I’ll make an exception.
There is even a sort of fundamentalist structure here. Those on top of the food chain make fairly reasoned arguments, and then step aside while their attack-jackals crank up the personal attacks. It’s like the fundamentalist hierarchy I recall from the movie Mississippi Burning: The sheriff was too smart to get his hands dirty, but he had a legion of slavish minions willing to do the unsavory work for him.
Once again, while not passing judgment on the merits of the biological ID debate, when someone on this blog criticizes ID for its lack of peer-reviewed ID publications I want to laugh at the absurdity. Now, as fundamentalists, I suspect that you are absolutely certain of the “level playing field” myth you perpetuate. Once again, though, I’ll point out the obvious. What you are really saying is
ID is not science because IDers do not publish in peer reviewed journals
ID should not be published in peer reviewed journals because it is not science
If (2) is ever violated then either the journal is not as reputable as thought or the editor was not properly vetted.
As I have said before, I tend to agree with (2) but can only marvel adding (1) into the mix (and with a straight face!)—which requires cajones the size of Brazil. Then again, fundamentalists don’t mind espousing circular arguments if it fits their world view.
Comment #15119
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 7, 2005 08:41 AM (e) (s)
Feed the troll ´til it explodes! One little wafer won´t hurt…
Comment #15125
Posted by Ginger Yellow on February 7, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)
1. Given that IDers consistently fail to present anything approaching a scientific argument, there’ s not much left but ad hominem arguments.
2 I like the irony of dragging Hillary into a point about conspiracy mongering. Remember this one? “Kerry’s just a Clinton front! The Democrats want him to lose so Hillary can run in 2008!”
3. That’s because these guys are biology PhDs! Of course they know better than some high school student. Given what a ludicrously high proportion of Americans don’t accept evolution, I think the fear is justified. History teachers would probably get somewhat upset if there were stickers on the front of textbooks saying “The idea that most Americans are descended from the pilgrims or slaves is a theory, not a fact.” It obfuscates the truth. Why would you want to do that?
4. You just don’t get it. Democracy has nothing to do with science. If a majority of people think the earth is flat, it doesn’t make them right. And it’s not just science If an elected school board wanted to teach holocaust revisionism alongside the Final Solution, would you think that was a legitimate expression of democracy?
Comment #15127
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on February 7, 2005 09:46 AM (e) (s)
For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, once wrote that biologists must constantly remind themselves that what they see was not designed but evolved. (Imagine a scientist repeating through clenched teeth: “It wasn’t really designed. Not really.”)
(Imagine Crick and Behe ever being mentioned in the same context. nah, too ridiculous.)
Comment #15128
Posted by Russell on February 7, 2005 09:53 AM (e) (s)
Behe is, of course, without a doubt, correct in everything he wrote in that article. ID has been maligned by a horde of intellectually dishonest academic elitists.
With this bit of over-the-top silliness, DaveScot reveals himself as yet another prankster who is just having a bit of fun rattling the cages of folks who think the anti-intellectual movement is actually something to take seriously.
Level with us, DaveScot: you don’t really give a flying fork about any of this, do you?
Comment #15132
Posted by Tim Tesar on February 7, 2005 10:47 AM (e) (s)
The IDers have demonstrated once again (as so many times before) that their ideas are so scientifically vacuous that they must resort to the popular media to promote them.
Comment #15134
Posted by Alex Merz on February 7, 2005 10:51 AM (e) (s)
I *hate* the comparison of prokaryotic flagella to “outboard motors”. First of all, the flagellar motor is inboard, *not* outboard.
Second, the motor on a boat turns a crew that works at relatively high reynolds numbers, and consequently acts almost entirely through momentum transfer mechanisms, while bacterial “swimming” at low Reynolds numbers generates forward movement through viscous coupling with the fluid, *not* through momentum transfer.
These are not minor points, and they underscore the point that Behe et al are not only not speaking to other scientists — they are not even trying to inform their lay readership in a serious way.
Top to bottom, the whole enterprise is a confidence game.
Comment #15138
Posted by DIor on February 7, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)
One possible counter to the IDer sound byte arguments is one I’ve used on many a born-again-Reasons to Believer: I tell them simply “Prove Darwin wrong and win a million bucks!” I then point out that major discoveries in Science often come from over turning the established theories of the time, and those people are usually awarded a Nobel prize and the cash. So…if science really is covering up the truthfulness of ID then we are all consenting not to collect the money and fame that would accompany it. Hogwash I’m as greedy as the next man and if I could overturn Darwin I would. Then I dare them to study evolution and try overturning Natural Selection themselves. The gauntlet, sadly, is never taken up.
Comment #15141
Posted by Andy Groves on February 7, 2005 11:13 AM (e) (s)
We need sound bites too.
“The essence of Intelligent Design is that life on Earth was designed by a supernatural God or by space aliens. Since there is no evidence to support either possibility, this theory should not be taught in schools.”
Comment #15148
Posted by Francis J. Beckwith on February 7, 2005 11:21 AM (e) (s)
Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim? For example, suppose scientist X argues that moral claims are entirely accountable by evolution, but suppose philosopher Y argues that moral claims cannot be accounted for by evolution because of certain conceptual problems in the account (as I have argued in my article “Why I Am Not a Relativist”). If Y is correct, then X’s case is defeated, it seems to me. But if that is the case, then external conceptual challenges to apparently scientific claims are in-principle possible.
Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic. If B is correct, isn’t that a defeater to Z’s account, even though B’s argument is non-empirical?
Comment #15149
Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)
Okay, that last comment of mine was harsh. I get a bit frustrated.
I’m just not ready to abandon the Copernican Principle quite yet.
It demands we assume intelligent life like us is not special. We’re already successfully tinkering with our own genome and those of other organisms. That demonstrates intelligent design at the genetic and epigenetic level is possible. The question then becomes are we the first kids on the block to be able to do this. Copernican Principle says we should assume not. We aren’t special.
Some very fascinating science mostly sponsered by NASA trying to get a better handle on how Copernican our situation here really is. And of course there’s SETI which has only scratched the surface of an exhaustive search for intelligence elsewhere in the causally connected universe. Mabye the overwhelming appearance of design is exactly what it looks like. How weird would that be? Not very. Copernicus isn’t knocked down by it.
What really boogles the mind is coming to grips with the idea that intelligent agents in labcoats, some with the first name Steve, appear likely to become (if they aren’t already) the primary drivers of hominid and many other organisms’ evolution on this planet. Practical, productive genetic engineering is here now. Natural evolution is being displaced by directed evolution as we speak. If unnatural evolution isn’t in our past it’s in our present and future.
Suggesting a 9th grader read “Of Pandas and People” is SOOOO trivial in the big scheme of things. You have to realize the vast majority won’t bother because it’s too much like extra work that isn’t being graded. I worry more about them watching “The Matrix” too many times and believing that. I worry about ME believing that! Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.
Comment #15150
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 11:29 AM (e) (s)
Note that more and more people are realizing the ID’s claims are scientifically ‘vacuous’. ID does not deal in explanations, although in the same breath ID proponents claim it is the ‘best explanation’, they remain silent as to the nature and thus the explanatory power of the ID hypothesis. In fact, when pressed for details Dembski responded as follows
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering
(William Dembski on ISCID)
Other people have been calling ID on the same issues as well
Prof. Richard Colling is quoted:
In his new book, “Random Designer,” he writes: “It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods” when they say evolutionary theory is “in crisis” and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. “Such statements are blatantly untrue,” he argues; “evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny. [1]”
(Sharon Begley in Tough Assignment: Teaching Evolution To Fundamentalists, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2004; Page A15)
Patrick Frank is the author of “On the Assumption of Design”, Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.
Abstract: The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.
Ryan Nichols is the author of Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611,
Abstract: Arguments of the following form are given against theories like psychoanalysis: Psychoanalysis implies X. Psychoanalysis also implies NOT(X). Hence, no observations of X or of NOT(X) can falsify psychoanalysis. Since an important proportion of propositions implied by psychoanalysis are similar to X in this respect, psychoanalysis is not falsifiable. Since psychoanalysis isn’t falsifiable, it is not a science.
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined.
I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program. Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
Comment #15152
Posted by Dr.J. on February 7, 2005 11:36 AM (e) (s)
Behe confuses analogies, as “literary” tools for comparative purposes, with empirically based descriptive ‘literal” words. No sane scientist using machine analogies to describe the workings of biological processes would ever think he was being literal. Because if Behe thinks they are, then I would argue he doesn’t understand what a real machine is, what a real motor is, what a real clock is, what a real spring is.
If I took some literary license to call Behe a “puppet” of the religious right, would that make Behe a real puppet … what a minute, maybe Behe is on to something here.
Comment #15153
Posted by Rilke's Grand-daughter on February 7, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)
Mr. Beckwith writes,
Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim? For example, suppose scientist X argues that moral claims are entirely accountable by evolution, but suppose philosopher Y argues that moral claims cannot be accounted for by evolution because of certain conceptual problems in the account (as I have argued in my article “Why I Am Not a Relativist”). If Y is correct, then X’s case is defeated, it seems to me. But if that is the case, then external conceptual challenges to apparently scientific claims are in-principle possible.
But your hypothetical is far too vague to be of any use as an example. For instance, if scientist X is proposing a theoretical mechanism for the evolution of moral claims, then he must be disputed with scientific evidence. In order to judge whether your question is meaningful, we would more precise instances: what philosophical objection is being raised against scientist X’s hypothesis? Is a question of simple logic? In that case, it represents a scientific challenge. Is a question of of divergence along the lines of a moral philosophy position held by philosopher Y? Then what possible intersection can there be?
Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic. If B is correct, isn’t that a defeater to Z’s account, even though B’s argument is non-empirical?
This second example is clearer than the first: the philosopher is offering a logical objection to a scientific hypothesis. But the philosopher is dealing with unprovables; there is, in fact, no reason to a prior reject infinte regress on scientific or logical grounds.
Pending further clarification, I would have to say that the answer to your question is no.
Comment #15154
Posted by Mike Walker on February 7, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)
What really boogles the mind is coming to grips with the idea that intelligent agents in labcoats, some with the first name Steve, appear likely to become (if they aren’t already) the primary drivers of hominid and many other organisms’ evolution on this planet. Practical, productive genetic engineering is here now. Natural evolution is being displaced by directed evolution as we speak. If unnatural evolution isn’t in our past it’s in our present and future.
But then why not use that rationale for other branches of science? Our society is changing the landscape much more quickly than natural forces (with the exception of the odd volcano or earthquake). Whole geological layers are being built up by landfills and other urban developments in the space of decades and centuries. But I don’t hear any non-YEC IDers speculating about ID in geological circles.
Suggesting a 9th grader read “Of Pandas and People” is SOOOO trivial in the big scheme of things. You have to realize the vast majority won’t bother because it’s too much like extra work that isn’t being graded. I worry more about them watching “The Matrix” too many times and believing that. I worry about ME believing that! Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.
Yeah, but The Matrix is sold as science fiction not science fact - there’s a big difference. Anyone who truly believes that The Matrix is reality is rightly written off as - to put it kindly - not quite right in the head.
Comment #15155
Posted by Mike Walker on February 7, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)
BTW “boogling the mind” sounds like fun :)
Comment #15156
Posted by Steve Reuland on February 7, 2005 11:47 AM (e) (s)
the refusal to engage in meaningful debate, often by resorting to ad hominem attacks (this blog is a world leader in ad hominem tactics, I have never seen, since middle school, such frequent use of arguing by calling one’s opponents “stupid, crackpots, idiots, morons, etc.”)
You need to document this claim or retract it. While I admit to being sarcastic and less than decorous at times, I do not make a habit of referring to IDists using those terms (I doubt I’ve ever used one) nor do the other people who post to this blog. In particular, Nick’s post, that you’ve decided to comment on, did not use any of those terms, much less all of them, and instead addressed Behe’s claims directly.
What people write in the comments, however, we have only limited control over. In case you haven’t noticed, we have a more or less open comment policy (unlike the DI blog, which doesn’t allow comments at all) which allows people to sometimes get away with making rude comments. That would include, for exampe, the extreme rudeness of your post. This is the price we pay for an open forum.
The real irony is that your post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on those of us who work hard to maintain this blog and to keep it lively. You did not address a single one of Nick’s arguments. You’ve accused us of elitism, fundamentalism, etc. — charges which would be irrelevant to our claims even if true. Such hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Comment #15157
Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)
I am still waiting for someone on this blog to admit that he or she is stupid enough that, if that sticker had been on their high school biology text, they would have ended up teaching YEC at Liberty University.
Ain’t that the truth…
Russel - the science side is all academic to me. Heddle wrapped that up neatly with the quote above. No 15 year old I know (and I’ve raised two of my own well beyond that point) is going to be effected by anything Dover or Cobb or Kansas or wherever has done or attempted to do. That said, I object in principle whenever activist judges and overeaching federal agencies interfere with duly enacted laws through tortured interpretation of the constitution. ID is sufficiently devoid, prima facie, of any religious favoritism that rises to level 1st amendment establishment clause. In fact I believe the stronger case is that banning it is direct violation of the freedom clause. It’ll live or die by its own merits and in any case isn’t going to have any detrimental effect on science. All significance is political.
Comment #15158
Posted by Jim Harrison on February 7, 2005 11:53 AM (e) (s)
Whether there are philosophical arguments that trump scientific ones or not, there are certainly philosophical arguments that defeat theological ones. David Hume’s criticism of teleology refuted Paley before Darwin was born, for example; and Kant’s demolition of much of the rest of natural theology also predates the modern theory of evolution.
Comment #15159
Posted by Ginger Yellow on February 7, 2005 11:53 AM (e) (s)
1st query: No, there’s a category error in there. The essence of your example is that Y says morality is not scientific and X says it is. Absent evidence that one is right and the other wrong, neither “is defeated”.
To move away from the hypothetical, no reputable scientist these days would argue that “moral claims are entirely accounted for by evolution. Certainly he/she would say that they are a product of evolution, but culture has taken over and is vastly more important in the modern world.
2nd query:For a start, Z must offer a means to to test his theory, or else it isn’t scientific in the first place. Second, the argument of infinite regress is scientific, because it’s a basic part of logic. Empricism isn’t everything.
Incidentally, you have “moral relativism” all wrong, as do most people who use the term. Most atheists are moral absolutists just as much as Christians. We just have a different basis for our morals. In that very limited sense, there is no objective morality. But that doesn’t imply anything goes, as Christian moralists seem to think.You say, for example: “if it is true that no objective moral norms apply to all people at all times and in all places, then the following moral judgements must be denied: Mother Theresa was no better than Adolf Hitler, rape is always wrong, it is wrong to torture babies for fun.” This is arrant nonsense. What is true is that not all people will think that those moral judgements are correct. But I would think the doubters are wrong. Without wanting to be rude, I think your morals are wrong, just as you would think my morals are wrong if you knew them. I have a fully fledged moral code, as you do, and I know right from wrong, as you do. But my right is different from your right. And I’m more than willing to say why I think my right is better than your right.
Comment #15160
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 11:55 AM (e) (s)
Wow, the usual trolls are just drunk on Behe’s editorial. Was there anything new in Behe’s script? Nope.
I’m glad to see Behe’s editorial. Come closer to the spotlight Behe, my little cockroach!
My favorite little word twister and reality-denier, David Heddle, seeks to turn the tables and characterize scientists as “fundamentalists”. What a hilarious joke coming from a Christian who makes self-serving arguments here intended to prove the existence of mysterious beings with awesome powers, but inevitably he pretends not to notice when his arguments have been totally destroyed.
the refusal to engage in meaningful debate, often by resorting to ad hominem attacks
David, you sick pathetic disgusting sack of a liar. I recall not too long ago various members of this blog devoted a great deal of their time engaging in a meaningful debate with you and your stupid pseudo-philosophical claptrap.
The “meaningful debate” with “intelligent design” peddlers ended many many years ago. Arguments from ignorance wherein mysterious alien beings with awesome supernatural powers are invoked to explain a phenomenon are not science.
All of the rest of the points you raise in your post (the “level playing field” canard, etc) were addressed and refuted the last time you dragged your stinky mind over here, David. I doubt you have forgotten that.
Truly pathetic. But go ahead and brag some more about how smart you are and how you realized in high school that evolutionary biologists must be wrong and you were right. That’s always good for a laugh.
Comment #15161
Posted by Colin on February 7, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)
Just the admission that there might be some truth in ID is benign and not an unreasonable position.
It would be an unreasonable position, because it would be capitulation to fundamentally dishonest and manipulative social engineering. Honest scientists are ethically precluded from bowing and scraping to religious fundamentalists or conceding that there might be some value in pseudoscientific zealotry, when no such value has been demonstrated. Submitting to an unscientific political movement motivated by religious radicals would be abdicating the ethical practice of science. Scientists pursue objective inquiry into the natural world, and if ID wants abandon its manipulations and presuppositions to join that pursuit, no one is standing in its way.
ID does not want to join the scientists in the laboratories and libraries, however; it has utterly failed to compete at that level. It is, in every respect, unreasonable to ask scientists to “admit” that there is scientific truth in a rhetorical and political argument that cannot muster evidence, or even a coherent theory, to stand upon.
Comment #15164
Posted by Steve Reuland on February 7, 2005 12:06 PM (e) (s)
Consider another example. Suppose that scientist Z offers an account of the universe that necessitates postulating mulitiple universes. However, philosopher B counters by showing that this account requires an infinite regress of causes, which B argues is conceptually problematic. If B is correct, isn’t that a defeater to Z’s account, even though B’s argument is non-empirical?
I don’t have a problem with the notion that an obstensibly scientific theory can be defeated non-empirically. That is to say, a scientific theory can fail not because the evidence is against it, but because it is illogical, unparsimonious, incoherent, inconsistent with other well-accepted theories, etc. There is more than just testability when it comes to science.
However, a critique of a scientific theory does not itself make a theory, no matter how correct it may be. Showing that a given theory of multiple universes is wrong does not tell us what’s right.
My biggest problem with ID isn’t that its crticisms of evolution are mostly wrong, it’s that criticisms are all it has to offer. There is no positive account of how living things came to be that we can empirically investigate. So ID should not be called a scientific theory, at least not as it stands now.
Perhaps ID advocates believe that there can be no scientific theory of “origins”, which is to say that the means by which they believe living things originated cannot be empirically investigated. I would say, with a high degree of certainty, that this is what most of them believe. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if they’d just up and admit that this was their belief. Instead they claim, wrongly, that ID is a genuine scientific theory backed by empirical evidence.
Comment #15165
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)
Dave’s Heddle and Scot argue that
No 15 year old I know (and I’ve raised two of my own well beyond that point) is going to be effected by anything Dover or Cobb or Kansas or wherever has done or attempted to do.
This is the dumbest argument for putting a disclaimer sticker on a textbook that could possibly be raised.
What would be an appropriate description for a person who makes such an argument (“Let’s put this sticker on the textbook because no one is going to be affected by it.”)?
a) a dissembling rube;
b) a clueless apologist;
c) immature waterfront property owner who craves an audience;
d) cosmological wanker with short-term memory loss;
e) all of the above.
Comment #15166
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 7, 2005 12:18 PM (e) (s)
Hear, hear!
Scientists pursue objective inquiry into the natural world, and if ID wants abandon its manipulations and presuppositions to join that pursuit, no one is standing in its way.
ID does not want to join the scientists in the laboratories and libraries, however; it has utterly failed to compete at that level. It is, in every respect, unreasonable to ask scientists to “admit” that there is scientific truth in a rhetorical and political argument that cannot muster evidence, or even a coherent theory, to stand upon.
To the Point Colin, no less!
Comment #15167
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 7, 2005 12:18 PM (e) (s)
Query: Can an apparently non-scientific claim be a possible defeater to an apparently scientific claim?
Well, the quality of your article, “Why I Am Not a Moral Relativist,” argues “no.”
People seem to not be able to grasp that claiming absolute morality does not refute relative morality since most people do believe that their morals are absolute. That is the point of moral relativity. Now that I think about it, it is suprisingly similar to physical relativity. I could argue about much of your essay, but for the sake of thise board, I’ll restrict it to your comments on evolution.
You argue that there is no justification to “obey” morals unless there is a (higher) mind behind them. I’m curious then how use justify following our nation’s laws which are derived from the people and not some higher authority. Humans are social animals, and, as such, it is our nature to develop and follow rules that maintain societies. We help the less fortunate because they are or will be family and/or help us back in some way or another.
Comment #15169
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)
Steve R writes
Perhaps ID advocates believe that there can be no scientific theory of “origins”, which is to say that the means by which they believe living things originated cannot be empirically investigated. I would say, with a high degree of certainty, that this is what most of them believe. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if they’d just up and admit that this was their belief.
Precisely. Which brings us the next issue which is whether such beliefs need to be coddled in public schools by teaching lies and misleading stories about “scientific” controversies so that believers who are parents can allegedly indoctrinate their children free of any “secular humanist interference”.
Recent Supreme Court cases relating to the Pledge of Allegiance suggest that the parents in these sorts of cases do not have a compelling case and will need to simply remove their child from the “offensive” class. It’s worth mentioning, of course, that in the Pledge case we’re dealing with a meaningless display of empty patriotism. In the case of evolution, we’re dealing with facts that form the foundation of modern biology and medicine.
Comment #15172
Posted by Russell on February 7, 2005 12:31 PM (e) (s)
this blog is a world leader in ad hominem tactics, I have never seen, since middle school, such frequent use of arguing by calling one’s opponents “stupid, crackpots, idiots, morons, etc.”
Perhaps there are blogs, forums, sites, what-have-you… that address the creo/evo discussion with more substance and civility than this one. I haven’t stumbled across them. Since it’s a fairly uncensored exchange, it’s inevitable there is going to be some, let’s just say “incivility”. But I second Steve Reuland’s remarks above and look forward either to Heddle’s backing up his rhetoric or apologizing.
“As quoted in Ken Miller’s Pandas critique?” Hmmm.
Hate to bring this up again, but is there some reason why people around here can’t afford to buy the book and read it for themselves?
I guess you’re saying Miller is misrepresenting the book. Feel free to give us the accurate quote, then. But no, I’m not going to go out and buy “Of Pandas and People”. (or “Bible Predictions for 2005”, or “Use Astrology to Make You a Billionaire”).
Russel - the science side is all academic to me
‘Nuff said.
Comment #15174
Posted by Hiero5ant on February 7, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)
“it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories.”
Did Dembski really say this?
Did he *really* say that ID is something worse than “pathetic”?
Comment #15175
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)
The Media Complaints Division of the Discovery’s Institute for the renewal of Science and Culture chimes in
Hopefully other media will follow suit and instead of just regurgitating definitions from elsewhere they will accurately describe the theory itself.
Just because Behe described ID, does not mean that he is accurate. In addition to the scientific vacuity of ID, ID also seems to have a theological risk namely by arguing that ID is scientifically refutable, ID has opened up religious faith to scientific falsficiation. Given the failure of Gap arguments historically, and given the increased knowledge about the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade or the immune system, it seems inevitable that the claims of ID will be falsified. And with this, ID has presented a powerful weapon to those opposing religious faith.
The Discovery Institute has clearly linked their religious motivations with the action plan. ID proponents have come out to clearly state that ID is all about the Christian God. So let’s not ignore this angle. Since ID has failed to stand up as a scientific theory, in fact it seems to refuse to present much of any scientifically relevant data, it seems that what remains is the religious foundations of ID. And even those appear to be shaky and risky.
Behe and Snoke wrote a paper on a worst case example of gene duplication. This paper is now presented as ‘evidence of ID’, clearly showing that ID is all about ‘Not X’, ‘Thus Y’ when nothing in the paper gives any credibility to an ID relevant explanation.
And that my friend, is the rest of the story….
Comment #15178
Posted by FL on February 7, 2005 12:45 PM (e) (s)
I guess you’re saying Miller is misrepresenting the book.
No, Russell, I didn’t say that. In fact, I didn’t comment yay or nay on Miller’s review there.
My focus was to see if the standard research practice of checking out primary sources whenever possible, has gained any traction around ~here~.
(For the most part, the answer seems to remain “Nope”).
But, to return to Behe’s statement:
First, what it isn’t: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.
Y’all might as well concede Behe’s point there and save us all some time, no?
FL
Comment #15180
Posted by David Heddle on February 7, 2005 01:00 PM (e) (s)
Backing up my claim? Oh man I’ve dug myself a deep one here. What was I thinking? I’ll have to scour hundreds of threads. But, wait, right here in this one, from GWW:
David, you sick pathetic disgusting sack of a liar.
Comment #15183
Posted by NotSteveReuland on February 7, 2005 01:06 PM (e) (s)
You need to document this claim or retract it. While I admit to being sarcastic and less than decorous at times, I do not make a habit of referring to IDists using those terms (I doubt I’ve ever used one) nor do the other people who post to this blog. In particular, Nick’s post, that you’ve decided to comment on, did not use any of those terms, much less all of them, and instead addressed Behe’s claims directly.
What people write in the comments, however, we have only limited control over. In case you haven’t noticed, we have a more or less open comment policy (unlike the DI blog, which doesn’t allow comments at all) which allows people to sometimes get away with making rude comments. That would include, for exampe, the extreme rudeness of your post. This is the price we pay for an open forum.
The real irony is that your post is nothing more than an ad hominem attack on those of us who work hard to maintain this blog and to keep it lively. You did not address a single one of Nick’s arguments. You’ve accused us of elitism, fundamentalism, etc. — charges which would be irrelevant to our claims even if true. Such hypocrisy is simply breathtaking. You should be ashamed of yourself.
READ THIS AGAIN DAVID.
Comment #15184
Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 01:07 PM (e) (s)
But then why not use that rationale for other branches of science?
Address that when and if it happens. In the meantime disembark the slippery slope.
Yeah, but The Matrix is sold as science fiction not science fact - there’s a big difference. Anyone who truly believes that The Matrix is reality is rightly written off as - to put it kindly - not quite right in the head.
The underlying idea of the matrix, that we really don’t have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality, is not science fiction but an ages old philosophical issue that any good agnostic will shrug off as a possibility then focus on something more practical. I find it impossible to be anything but agnostic at the end of the day.
But if I have to choose between just two options I’d rather have my neighbor’s kid believe there might be a bearded thunderer that will hold him accountable for his actions than one who thinks nothing really matters because life has no purpose. Leave the door for purpose open. It does no harm and it might do some good.
Comment #15185
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)
David Heddle relishes my description of him:
David, you sick pathetic disgusting sack of a liar.
You really crack me up, David.
Unlike you, David, I’m an honest straight-shooting fellow. Your dissembling inarticulate “argumentative style” does in fact disgust me. Moreover, it is not difficult to show you are dishonest. Many of us here have succeeded in proving to any reasonable observer that you lack credibility and are prone to spin, hyperbole, contradiction, and dissembling.
I have debated you numerous times about the bogusness of “ID theory” and about your bogus “level playing field” claims and about the lameness of “worldview” rhetoric. And each time I won those debates, David, hands down.
I’m not surprised that you take it personally because, based on your bragging about your high school achievements and other behavior, you’re obviously one of those arrogant but sensitive types.
Perhaps the rubes who enjoy reading your blog are not interested in articulate arguments where words have fixed meanings. I strongly suspect that is the case.
But when you come here and mess the bulls, David, you get the horns —- ouch! I didn’t mean to make you weap. In any event, I would have guessed you’d have gotten over your shameful hissy fit by now.
Anytime you want to present a novel argument which explains convincingly why “ID theory” is science and not just an argument from ignorance which invokes mysterious alien beings which could explain any and all phenomenon for which science does not have a satisfactory answer, we are all ears, David!
Good luck.
Comment #15186
Posted by Colin on February 7, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)
First, what it isn’t: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.
Y’all might as well concede Behe’s point there and save us all some time, no?
No concession is necessary or possible. Behe is intentionally deceiving his readers, as he pursues a blatantly religious agenda. The unarticulated ‘theory’ of Intelligent Design requires, in every variation, a supernatural intelligence to have created life and guided its development. An appeal to supernatural intelligences as a cause of natural effects is religion. Not only is this apparent from even a cursory reading of any ID literature, it has been confirmed more than once by the leading advocates of the movement - everyone here is familiar with the Wedge Document, and probably with Dembski’s less temperate statements about the nature of ID.
I think that FL’s call for a concession is typical of the rhetoric of modern-day Lysenkoism: he demands that scientists immediately credit the ideologically correct theory, whether or not the evidence supports it.
I, for one, am glad that scientists here and elsewhere base their studies on evidence and observation rather than politically vetted rhetoric.
Comment #15187
Posted by Great White Wonder on February 7, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)
That’s “weep”. Stop laughing.
Comment #15188
Posted by Tim Tesar on February 7, 2005 01:15 PM (e) (s)
I realize Behe says nothing that has not been refuted many times before, so to offer more refutations to his piece is only to beat a dead horse. However, I can’t resist.
Behe states that “the contemporary argument for intelligent design” “consists of four linked claims”. I beg to differ. In addition to those he mentions, ID also necessarily entails the following claims (plus many others, undoubtedly) that need to be supported scientifically (not theologically):
That there is somewhere (location unspecified) an entity (or entities) (the nature of which is unspecified) that has intelligence (instantiated in some unspecified medium) that has interacted with the universe (or maybe just the earth, who knows?) using some mechanisitc process (unspecified) to alter biological materials in some manner (unspecified) at some time or times (unspecified) during the history of the earth. And in spite of the fact that this entity was capable of all this, it has failed to communiate to us in a direct and unambiguous way (meaning by use of language) what or who it is and how it accomplished all of this, because for some reason (unspecified) it chooses not to do so inspite of the fact that it could surely do so.
Before creationists retort that evolutionists are unable to specify exactly which changes in DNA were required to account for every step in evolution (something that is obviously impossible), you need to explain why the inferences entailed by evolutionary theory are less plausible than the (so far non-existant) explanations required to support the claims I describe above.
And in light of some comments above, I am assuming that IDers ARE interested in developing a scientific theory. I have never seen anything in my reading of ID material that suggested otherwise.
I sincerely hope that none of my theist evolutionary colleagues feel this is offensive or wrong-heaqded. If so, please let me know. As an atheist, I am greatly lacking in theological sophistication.
With respect to The Times, one wonders whether, if they were willing to publish something like this (that is so far out of the scientific mainstream) as an Op-Ed , why should they not also be willing to publish an Op-Ed by a holocaust denier?
Comment #15189
Posted by Steve Reuland on February 7, 2005 01:15 PM (e) (s)
My focus was to see if the standard research practice of checking out primary sources whenever possible, has gained any traction around ~here~.
(For the most part, the answer seems to remain “Nope”).
FL, Nick has told you on several occasions that he has a copy of Pandas and has indeed read it. Has it occured to you that he cited Miller’s critique becaue it could be linked to? Or that maybe he didn’t have the book on hand when he wrote this post?
Y’all might as well concede Behe’s point there and save us all some time, no?
It’s been extensively documented that ID was conceived for the purposes of religious apologetics. Just because it’s possible to be an ID proponent without being pushing religion doesn’t change the fact that this is the agenda of its leading advocates. Behe is just obfuscating. It would save us all a lot of time if he and the rest of them would just admit their religious agenda up front.
Comment #15190
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 01:18 PM (e) (s)
First, what it isn’t: the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea, even though devout people opposed to the teaching of evolution cite it in their arguments.
It is a religiously based idea portrayed as a ‘scientific argument’ not different from ‘God of the Gaps’. Let me repeat this once more:
1. THere is no theory of intelligent design beyond ‘Not X, thus Y’
2. This is a clear example of ‘God of the gaps’ or ‘appeal to ignorance’
3. Philip Johnson and others clearly identify that it is all about the ‘Christian God’
ID has a choice, it can continue to deny the nature of the designer and remain scientifically vacuous or it can present testable mechanisms, pathways, motives, means etc. Of course the latter one would mean that ID has to constrain their ‘intelligent designer’ which for all practical purposes would mean ‘God’.
In other words ID is scientifically vacuous, and theologically risky.
ID proponents argue on the one hand that ID adds to science by adding the concept of design while arguing on the other hand that science already contains the concept of design (criminology etc). So when they point to their version of design, it is clear that it is not about what science can address, and thus is for all practical purposes about supernatural.
Comment #15191
Posted by David Heddle on February 7, 2005 01:22 PM (e) (s)
Steve,
Perhaps your point is that such personal attacks are not made in the actual posts, only in the comments? I agree with that, and said as much when I allowed that the top of the food chain offers reasoned arguments. I understand you can’t control the comments, but there they are, demonstrating what I claimed.
I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked “when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?”
Comment #15192
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 01:24 PM (e) (s)
It’s been extensively documented that ID was conceived for the purposes of religious apologetics. Just because it’s possible to be an ID proponent without being pushing religion doesn’t change the fact that this is the agenda of its leading advocates. Behe is just obfuscating. It would save us all a lot of time if he and the rest of them would just admit their religious agenda up front.
It has to be religiously motivated since the proposed explantory filter or IC are based on God of the Gaps arguments. Notice that ID does not give ANY explanation as to how the flagellum did arise. Other than by rejecting positive evidence to show how evolutionary pathways could explain. In other words, no way to determine which is the better explanation…
Comment #15193
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 7, 2005 01:25 PM (e) (s)
DaveScot said:
But if I have to choose between just two options I’d rather have my neighbor’s kid believe there might be a bearded thunderer that will hold him accountable for his actions than one who thinks nothing really matters because life has no purpose. Leave the door for purpose open. It does no harm and it might do some good.
What if there are more than those two options? Last time I did a reality-check, I was very much held accountable for my actions by other human beings…that mattered to me, to say the least.
furthermore, DaveScot said:
…we really don’t have absolute knowledge of the nature of reality, is not science fiction but an ages old philosophical issue that any good agnostic will shrug off as a possibility then focus on something more practical. I find it impossible to be anything but agnostic at the end of the day.
Kind of agree there, I must say - science is for me (and I suggest, to scientists at large and by an overwhelming majority) that very practical way to understand nature without claiming “absolute knowledge”. We deal in models of reality, some more accurate than others, theories subject to revision as our methods are refined…nevertheless, science allows us a better grasp on many of today´s problems than superstition does. Case in point (in so many ways…): germ theory of (infectious) disease and antibiotics.
Comment #15194
Posted by Francis J. Beckwith on February 7, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)
R. Cartright writes:
“People seem to not be able to grasp that claiming absolute morality does not refute relative morality since most people do believe that their morals are absolute.”
Yes, that’s right. Howver, that is not my argument.
Cartwright asserts:
“You argue that there is no justification to `obey’ morals unless there is a (higher) mind behind them.”
What I argue is that the nature of a moral law—its abstract, immaterial, communicative and, and incumbent nature—is best accounted for in a theistic worldview. It is an argument to the best explanation.
Cartwright asserts:
“I’m curious then how use justify following our nation’s laws which are derived from the people and not some higher authority. Humans are social animals, and, as such, it is our nature to develop and follow rules that maintain societies. We help the less fortunate because they are or will be family and/or help us back in some way or another.”
That’s not why I help the less fortunate. I help them because they are intrinsically valuable beings. To help them because of what you can get is to implicitly deny their intrinsic value and to treat them merely as means to an end, yourself. This is why, for example, you expect from me an answer to your query. You believe, rightfully, that you are a rational moral agent entitled to reasons by nature. If I were to dismiss your query without taking the time to respond, you would, rightfully, think of me as a cad who does not respect you, and you would be correct. But that moral assumption—one that is implied by this dialogue—speaks to an understanding of ourselves and our world that cannot be reduced to biology, chemistry, or physics. Keep me in mind that if the observer himself is no more than a product of the very laws he is observing—that his rationality and agency are not irreducible properties of his being—then he vanishes in the process. “Nothing but” arguments issued from “nothing but” beings cannot be the deliverances of reason, something that must be more than the “nothing but” it seeks to account for.
Comment #15195
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)
{quote=David Heddle]I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked “when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?”[/quote]
It may indeed remain a phantasy since there seems to be no such thing as a hypothesis of ID to be reviewed.
X did it just does not make for any good explanation beyond ‘Poof’.
Comment #15196
Posted by DaveScot on February 7, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)
Most atheists are moral absolutists just as much as Christians. We just have a different basis for our morals.
Can you direct to me to the authority which establishes these moral absolutes?
In return I will direct you to the preambles of all 50 state constitutions of the United States which explicitely claim that a supernatural agent of some sort is the ultimate source of basic human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that gov’ts created by men exist solely to protect these rights. I don’t think it’s a good idea for science to reject the notion of a higher authority as a matter of doctrinal materialism. Evolution, or at least what of it is taught to high school students by fiat, is not leaving room for doubt. The Cobb sticker and/or the Dover 1-minute schpiel are very reasonable ways to bridge the ideological divide. Standing on principle is noble but compromise is practical.
Comment #15197
Posted by Colin on February 7, 2005 01:36 PM (e) (s)
Perhaps your point is that such personal attacks are not made in the actual posts, only in the comments? … I was motivated to post not in response to Nicks arguments, but to the first comment to his article, which fantasized about Behe being asked “when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?”
Behe must stand on a truly grand pedestal, or perhaps a pulpit, if a request that he meet the basic standards of science somehow constitutes a “personal attack.” What personal quality exempts Behe from scientific standards of objectivity and accuracy?
Comment #15198
Posted by PvM on February 7, 2005 01:43 PM (e) (s)
A good point is a comment which stated that Behe seems to be arguing that ID is not religious, thus it is scientific. I would like to address such a possibility, even accepting the possible strawman nature of it.
My statement would be that even if we were to accept that ID is not religious, it is scientifically vacuous. Two separate authors have addressed this issue in quite some detail.
Patrick Frank is the author of “On the Assumption of Design”, Theology and Science, Volume 2, Number 1 / April 2004, pp. 109 - 130.
Ryan Nichols is the author of Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly , 2003 , vol. 77 , no 4 , pp. 591 - 611,
Comment #15199
Posted by Jones Alley on February 7, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)
Wow. I’ve noted the existence of this site in passing, but never have browsed over to it before today. This article was my first foray into this maelstrom, and I’ll be back.
You guys have the BEST trolls ever!
Comment #15101
Posted by Ed Darrell on February 7, 2005 06:32 AM (e) (s)
One wonders if the various proponents of ID will call Behe to testify as an expert at their trials in Dover, or Tennessee, or wherever.
I would relish the cross-examination: “Since you won fame with the publication of your popular book, Dr. Behe, you’ve been almost completely silent in science publications.
“First, when will you publish a hypothesis of intelligent design for peer review?
“Second, what research do you do in intelligent design — and may we see your lab?
“Third, can you tell us of more than a dozen research projects in intelligent design, and show us those laboratories?”
“Okay, then how about one?
“If no one is doing science in intelligent design, how is it fair or accurate to call it good, current science?”