Comment #17830

Posted by notch on February 24, 2005 11:09 AM (e) (s)

I wonder what would happen if all biologists or even scientists refused to take part in a kangaroo court?  Could this be the best way of beating the rigged system?  If only one side came, then the school board might either ignore them or adopt a radically pro- ID stance, leading to a challenge in a real court, where backroom deals and pressures may be exposed.

Comment #17836

Posted by Harrison Bolter on February 24, 2005 11:27 AM (e) (s)

From the KC Star story:

‘John Millam, a software engineer with a doctorate in physics, left work early in Kansas City to come to the hearing at a Topeka hotel. The Mission resident said he doesn’t want the panel studying science standards to veer too far in any direction.

“The scientists say, ‘We’re right.’ The creationists say, ‘We’re right,’ ” Millam said. “Science should be neutral.”’

Um, sir? Science IS neutral…it follows the evidence. And the fact that you’ve divided the “controversy” into “scientists” and “creationists” indicates what should be taught in a public school science class and what should be taught in a Sunday (or Saturday, etc.) school class.

Comment #17838

Posted by PvM on February 24, 2005 11:29 AM (e) (s)

This would be a great forum to expose the scientific vacuity of ID and the theological risks. I wonder if such arguments would be allowed to be expressed.
Will the truth prevail? We shall see.

Comment #17840

Posted by Richard on February 24, 2005 12:16 PM (e) (s)

Will the 3-member BoE subcommittee be made up of IDC supporters only? I couldn’t tell from the KC Star story. But if they’re the ones controlling the “trial,” I suppose the hope is that any real scientists who participate will be blindsided by well-practiced, Gish-galloping galoots from the DI.

Comment #17841

Posted by scott pilutik on February 24, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

DI’s biggest problem is that there is essentially no debate in the scientific community as to evolution’s validity. But by bypassing the traditional channels by which academic validity is gained and going right  to the public, they’re laying the groundwork to gain the ability to soon say that there IS a debate. Else why all these debates?

Notch raises a good point; the more scientists allow themselves to be engaged in these types of rigged events, the more easy it will be for the John Millams of this world to draw a ‘50/50’ dichotomy and conclude that “neutrality” is the way to go.

Of course, remaining silent has its problems too. But in an event as rigged as the one Kansas is setting up, it might be best to just sit it out. Anyone school board that thinks scientific questions can be decided by a simple majority deserve the embarrassment that will come when no one shows up for its kangaroo court.

Comment #17842

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on February 24, 2005 12:27 PM (e) (s)

According to an even newer story, even the Board of Education may be backing off the Kangaroo Court idea:

Board gets a lesson

Both sides of evolution debate air views

By Barbara Hollingsworth
The Capital-Journal

Kansas doesn’t need a modern-day version of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

The chairman of the Kansas State Board of Education and the chairman of a committee revising the state science standards agree on that much. But in a downtown meeting late Wednesday following the last public hearing on the state’s science standards, they couldn’t agree on just what format an informed debate about evolution might take. The meeting also was attended by proponents of intelligent design.

Earlier in the evening, the teaching of evolution also received all of the focus during a public hearing about revisions to the state science standards at the Capitol Plaza Hotel. About 150 people attended the hearing, among them preachers, scientists, college teachers, parents and students speaking about the state’s science standards, which lay out what Kansas students should learn and be tested on.

On one side of Wednesday’s public hearing were those who said science as it is currently taught censors criticism of evolution. On the other side, supporters of the current teaching of evolution said critics wrongly seek to redefine science in favor of religious-based views.

The conservative-dominated state school board also hopes to gather expert differing opinions, and it created a three-member subcommittee earlier this month to hear testimony about evolution. Subcommittee members have discussed having hearings that could resemble a trial in which witnesses would be cross-examined by the opposing side.

At Wednesday’s late meeting, board chairman Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City, said the four public hearings conducted throughout the state have been valuable, but they haven’t provided a forum for experts to debate.

(Barbara Hollingsworth, "Board gets a lesson" Topeka Capital-Journal, February 24, 2005.)

That last bit is indicative of how the public hearings went — the IDists didn’t get the support they were looking for.

“I think this goes to the heart of the controversy that I am unaware of any other forum where the public can hear both sides of a discussion and have questions asked that would be relevant to their greater understanding,” he said. “I believe it is important we have greater understanding of this by the public.”

But Steve Case, chairman of the committee revising the standards, questioned how the witnesses would be selected and if they would have expertise in the area they covered. He also said many scientists would feel uncomfortable speaking in a trial format.

Plus, Case said many of his colleagues see the outcome as a forgone conclusion. It is widely expected that the state board will deviate from the science standards written by Case’s committee as board members did in 1999. That year, the board removed references to the age of the Earth and macroevolution, or changes from one species to another.

“That is the perception in the science community: because of the politics, because of the controversy, it is a rigged hearing,” Case said.

Case did agree to help develop a list of topics that could be debated, but he didn’t agree on the format those debates should take and said he doesn’t want to be involved in that process. He suggested the debate be done in written statements. After the meeting, Abrams said he still believes the hearings need to include a spoken, public debate.

Speaking at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, Doug Phenix likened the debate to a tennis coach accusing a baseball coach of not playing baseball by the rules of tennis and teaching about the controversy.

“You can see how absurd this situation is,” said Phenix, a Topeka pastor who has a degree in chemistry. “We have a group of people wanting us to play baseball by the rules of tennis.”

Evolution — the theory that says species change over time responding to environmental and genetic factors — is under attack by intelligent design proponents. Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complicated to have been created by chance happenings and was more likely guided by an intelligent being.

Intelligent design proponents say science is too limited in viewing the world only by natural observations and ruling out the possibility of an intelligent being. But supporters of evolution say that the intelligent design proponents would wrongly redefine science.

While more speakers at the Capitol Plaza spoke in favor of the current standards, many were critical of how evolution is currently taught. Joy Bourdess, of Overland Park, said a controversy clearly exists, and children must be taught about that debate.

“I believe that anything else dumbs down the education process,” she said. “I believe quality education teaches critical thinking skills.”

The science committee revising the state standards has rejected changes that would open evolution to criticism, but at least one speaker recognized that state board members may make a different choice.

“If your good work does not prevail this year, I am certain it will after the 2006 elections,” Lawrence resident Phil Baringer told members of the science committee.

Barbara Hollingsworth can be reached at (785) 295-1285 or .

(Barbara Hollingsworth, "Board gets a lesson" Topeka Capital-Journal, February 24, 2005.)

Comment #17843

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on February 24, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

Comment #17844

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 24, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)

Will the 3-member BoE subcommittee be made up of IDC supporters only?

Yes.  The 6-member majority voted on the subcommittee and then voted on whom to place on the committee.

Personally, I think this is a great idea for Kansas.  It is going to be so embarrassing that it will backfire on the majority of the board.  That is what happened in Georgia, when Kathy Cox stood up and called evolution “a negative buzzword.”

Comment #17845

Posted by Ben on February 24, 2005 12:33 PM (e) (s)

Is it too far out to believe that John H. Marburger III will storm this “trial” à la Al Sharpton on Boston Legal? Cause that would be so cool.

Anyway, I remain optimistic about the kangaroo kourt situation (if it even happens).

Comment #17846

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on February 24, 2005 12:37 PM (e) (s)

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

Good analogy.  We should use it more often.

Comment #17851

Posted by Jim McCusker on February 24, 2005 12:51 PM (e) (s)

I run into this at work (in a PA public school) all the time.  Especially from social studies teachers who teach “BOTH communism and democracy”
Can’t you just teach both “theories”???  Sure, I’ll teach the Muslim kids, the Shinto kids, the Buddist kids, Jews, Born Agains, Jehovah’s Witnesses….. THE  VERSION OF CREATION THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH (I am Catholic).  Is that acceptable??? 
  If you want a religious version of the story, buck up and send your kid to a religious school.  Every one of the religions above would have a rightful lawsuit against me for indoctrinating their kids wth “my religion”.  I have three degrees, two in Biology and one in Education.  NONE in theology.  i am not qualified to lecture on creationism.
  A second point, if you do not think evolution is a fact, I do not have the time or patience to deal with you.  What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE.  Also, remember there is a huge difference between kneeling down and bending over.

Comment #17852

Posted by Richard on February 24, 2005 01:06 PM (e) (s)

If the 3-member BoE subcommittee are all creationists, and they get to be the “judges,” how could this “court” be anything other than the marsupial variety? What a farce… what IS the matter with Kansas? (Somebody oughtta write a book!)

Comment #17857

Posted by FL on February 24, 2005 01:48 PM (e) (s)

What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE.

Now ~that’s~ some thin ice for an evolutionist to be skating on, dude.

Applied consistently, that principle would effectively mean having to “teach the controversy” to the science students, no?

FL

Comment #17858

Posted by plunge on February 24, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)

See, this is why science needs a field program.  Too many people seem to think that the correctness of their ideas will carry them on through: that, as happens in science, truth will out, evidence will convince, and all will be well.

Well, it won’t.  For all the glib chuckling at ID, we’re losing ground to them, not gaining it.  They (both the ID movement in particular and the anti-SoCaS movement in general) are playing this smart, as if it were a long-term chess game where they are racking up  the pieces they need, framing the discussions the ay they want.  They are playing politics.  They have lawyers on our side.  We need lawyers and field advocates for our side.  What we are doing isn’t working.  People don’t trust us.  We are turning people off, in part because the creationists have better “frames” than we do (we have complicated points about scientific philosophy.  They have “equal time” “teach to the debate” “liberty” “your faith and dogma”  and so forth) The hostility to science is incredible in this modern day, and it’s getting entrenched while we sit on our hands and laugh at the latest goofiness.  But while we think it’s goofy, people in these states are seeing it as deadly serious.  And even though ID people usually lose these things, they build a massive resivoir of resentment and revolution among ordinary people.

From what I see, too many of us seem to think that just because we can refute their arguments, all is well and good.  But we win those battles almost always at the expense of losing the war. 

We need more political wings to go right out into these communities and push clear, powerful messages about the importance of clearly delineated science and the values of religious tolerance.

Comment #17859

Posted by Tom Curtis on February 24, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

The Hollingsworth article mentions that experts will be cross examined “by the opposing side”.  Does anyone have any information about how that will be conducted?  Will the panel conduct the cross examinations, any scientist giving testimony for that side, or designated attorneys?

Also, instead of boycotting, what would the effect be of all biologists in the US applying to give evidence.  The ID side is going to get evidence from all the scientists who accept ID; why not make it obvious (and on the record) what a small minority of scientists that represents; and how the “fair” format is designed to actively exclude available evidence supporting evolution?

Comment #17860

Posted by Flint on February 24, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

Boiling science down to slogans in the hopes they will be catchier than the ID slogans is a blueprint for failure. Science doesn’t lend itself to catchy slogans.

Comment #17861

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

Even though I am sympathetic with ID, I have little interest in these kinds of proceedings. These disputes are better kept in academia, and to the victor go the graduate students.

What does interest me is the following sentence from Nick Matzke’s initial post:

Undoubtedly what is planned is that the Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists who’ve never managed to publish original research confirming “intelligent design”….

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes “circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists” would be equally suitable. I can understand the inclusion of lawyers; no one cares for lawyers? I also understand (but disagree) with your characterization of ID scientists. What puzzles me is that philosophers are heading up the parade.

The charge of “philosophy” (usually meant pejoratively in the sense of “metaphysics) is commonplace on this board. The implication seems to be that philosophical positions are invalid for some reason, or that they don’t measure up to “scientific” ones, perhaps because they cannot be verified or falsified, etc. I would be interested to learn the opinions of the PT community on this score.

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields. They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

Comment #17862

Posted by plunge on February 24, 2005 02:09 PM (e) (s)

It isn’t a question of selling the technical science itself: of course that can’t be boiled down into a message.  It’s a question of selling values that respect science, and that can be comfortable with what science is all about.  That’s the battle we are losing. 

If you want to go on pretending that all will be well, that we can get by purely by dint of our righteousness, then you are in for the same surprise that liberals had when they realized in 2004 that there were more conservatives out there than them, and they were way more pissed than liberals had imagined.  The SC that will ultimately hear challenges to teaching ID will be one radically changed from the one that last heard such a case, and the ID movement has a far mroe insidious set of legal arguments.  You can’t pretend that the SC will protect you forever.  At some point, we maybe might want to see if we can maybe appeal to the regular people who are ultimately going to decide what can and cannot be taught in school.

Comment #17863

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 02:11 PM (e) (s)

‘John Millam, a software engineer with a doctorate in physics, left work early in Kansas City to come to the hearing at a Topeka hotel. The Mission resident said he doesn’t want the panel studying science standards to veer too far in any direction.
“The scientists say, ‘We’re right.’ The creationists say, ‘We’re right,’” Millam said. “Science should be neutral.”’

Well, he would know about that, I’m sure, having written
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4264/ufos.html… (“A Christian and Scientific Perspective on UFOs”), http://www.charismacomputers.com.au/Christian%20site/The%20G… (“The Genesis Genealogies”), and http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/texts/christianityorig… (“Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science”).  As his brother’s website (http://coe.west.asu.edu/students/smillam/smillam98/FamilyPho…) says, “John is active in church activities and enjoys studying how science supports the  Bible”.

It might have been nice if the Kansas City Star had pointed out that Mr. Millam isn’t exactly “neutral”.

Comment #17864

Posted by Sean Foley on February 24, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

What you BELIEVE is seperate from what you can PROVE.

Now ~that’s~ some thin ice for an evolutionist to be skating on, dude.

Applied consistently, that principle would effectively mean having to “teach the controversy” to the science students, no?

No.  Consistent application of this principle would mean not pressuring my Primatology professor to spend a couple of weeks talking about Bigfoot.
There’s no scientifically legitimate evidence for Bigfoot’s existence.  There’s a reasonable theory to explain Bigfoot sightings (relict Gigantopithecus populations), but no evidence.  What Grover Krantz believed was very different than what Grover Krantz could prove.  The same, only more so, goes for IDC.

You can’t teach the controversy when there’s no real controversy to teach.

Comment #17865

Posted by Keanus on February 24, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)

I think the proposed “trial” may be more akin to the Inquisition’s trial of Galileo. There the church fathers “knew” that Galileo was guilty of heresy but for appearances they held a “hearing.” What the ID majority of the Kansas BofE has proposed is juridically no different. The outcome—that is the decision by the board’s majority—is predetermined, and the “trial” is for the sake of appearance only. I think the best course to follow would be to decline to participate on the basis that the entire venture is a farce, but build a case for a suit once the decision is handed down from on high.

On the other hand, if Steve Case and crowd knew the ground rules in advance they might be able to marshal a group of witnesses and counsel that could demolish any ID promoters. But that would depend greatly on the ground rules (which the board majority seems to be making up as it goes along) and who the participants were. In the end, though the entire venture sounds like a serious attempt to cook the books so to speak.

Comment #17866

Posted by plunge on February 24, 2005 02:14 PM (e) (s)

“They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.”

To some extent, I agree.  Philosophers like Daniel Dennet and Peter Singer certainly have taken science and run with it to what I think is some positive end for philosophy.  And philosophers of science have indeed contributed some keen insights to the process of science that have hopefully made it more robust and self-skeptical. 

But the sort of philosophers I suspect Nick is thinking of are neither of these.  Instead, they tend to be in the mold of Tipler: out there people who want to ead all sorts of technical ideas into science without having much of a grasp of the evidence, or even how science works.  And I suspect they are going to be much more akin to Phillip Johnson’s lawyerly brand of philosophy than Decarte’s.

Comment #17867

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 02:23 PM (e) (s)

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes “circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists” would be equally suitable.

They would, since they too have no relevant expertise.

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena.

Yeah, I guess that explains why the IQ of those with PhD’s in physics clusters somewhere around 170.

They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

Yes, you’ve cleaned up the mangled mass of concepts in evolutionary biology with the marvelously simple “goddidit”.  What a genius.

Comment #17868

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 02:28 PM (e) (s)

But the sort of philosophers I suspect Nick is thinking of are neither of these.  Instead, they tend to be in the mold of Tipler: out there people who want to ead all sorts of technical ideas into science without having much of a grasp of the evidence, or even how science works.

Like Mr. Finley, who is “sympathic with ID” and thinks that scientists should consider “supernatural explanations” when natural explanations aren’t “forthcoming”.

Comment #17869

Posted by Jeremy Mohn on February 24, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis wrote:

Also, instead of boycotting, what would the effect be of all biologists in the US applying to give evidence.  The ID side is going to get evidence from all the scientists who accept ID; why not make it obvious (and on the record) what a small minority of scientists that represents; and how the “fair” format is designed to actively exclude available evidence supporting evolution?

Though it would be an immense undertaking, this may be a more successful strategy because it would prevent the ID folks from falsely exploiting the absence of willing “witnesses for evolution” as a sign of evolution’s lack of scientific support.  Perhaps it could be limited to professional scientists from Kansas or scientists with degrees from Kansas colleges and universities.  Those that sign on would not necessarily be obligated to testify, since the number of signees would (hopefully) be larger than ten.  I see this becoming something like “Project Steve” from the NCSE.  “Project Kansas” sounds nice to me.  Any other ideas?

Comment #17870

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 24, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Someone should issue a public challenge:  Anyone who testifies as an expert must show the laboratory in which she or he does the work that makes him or her an expert.  To qualify, they have to demonstrate their work and tell what their hypothesis is, and how they are testing it.

Bring on those ID experts!

Comment #17871

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

Is anyone else old enough to remember the 1972 Munich Olympic basketball gold medal game, where the officials re-played the last several seconds over and over again until the Russians could win?

Well enough to know that’s not what happened.  The buzzer sounded just as the Russians in-bounded the ball, but the Russians complained that they had called for a timeout earlier.  The officials decided to reset the clock to three seconds.  The Russians in-bounded the ball again, and the buzzer immediately sounded — because the clock hadn’t actually been reset.  The clock was reset, the Russians in-bounded the ball for the third time, made a spectacular full-court pass and sunk the ball, winning 51-50.  As Randy Harvey of the L.A. Times wrote, “They had to reset the clock, so they (the Soviets) got a third chance.  The Americans thought that at every turn they had been cheated when, in fact, they probably hadn’t been. But they’ll never acknowledge that.”

Comment #17872

Posted by Keanus on February 24, 2005 03:06 PM (e) (s)

The notion of a “Project Kansas” akin to NCSE’s Project Steve offers some potential. I can imagine Steve Case offering a list of biologists, all tenured faculty at Kansas Colleges, including some evangelical institutions, wanting to testity. Like Project Steve, limiting the proposed “witnesses” to tenured biologists from Kansas colleges and universities, but marshalling as many as possible, should bring the numbers into the low 100’s. It would take some effort but, if successful, if offers the potential of putting to rest the false notion that there is a controversy. Such an effort would be particularly effective, if the volunteer witnesses included a number f aculty from evangelical schools. To that end, someone might contact Richard Colling, an evangelical Christian with a PhD in microbiology and chair of the biology department at Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Illinois, who has written a book Random Designer arguing for the validity of evolution.  Dr. Colling might well know several biology faculty at Kansas evangelical universities who could be contacted.

Comment #17875

Posted by Frank J on February 24, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

Jim McCusker wrote:

If you want a religious version of the story, buck up and send your kid to a religious school.

I just posted on Talk Origins about how such comments bother me. Creationism and ID, without thorough mainstream science rebuttal, don’t belong in religious schools, churches or Sunday schools any more than they do in public schools, because that is tantamount to bearing false witness.

You don’t need a theology degree to lecture on Creationism, just enough knowledge of evolution to effectively misrepresent it. It also helps to have “Gish gallop” debating skills, a Dembskiesque way with baiting and switching definitions, a willingness to cherry pick evidence, pitch a dichotomy that you know is false, and of course, quote mine like the best of them. Oh yeah, and use “Darwinism” whenever possible.

Comment #17876

Posted by Flint on February 24, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields.

I suppose if most scientists disagreed with MY religion, I would also hold the opinion that they are (except for the rare newsworthy genius) all bottle washers, floor sweepers, and otherwise uninformed and thoughtless automatons. I wouldn’t even need to know anything at all about science, or be personally acquainted with a single one, to be convinced of this opinion. I would carefully avoid noticing the requirements all of them had to meet, including philosophical matters, to receive their degrees. I would conveniently ignore what a very large number have written of a philosophical nature, since it disagrees with my religion and is therefore not worth noticing. I would assume that without the philosophical background I assume they lack, they are universally unaware of the scientific foundations of the very work they do for a living. And finally, I could address a blog full of scientists and, confident in my boundless ignorance, tell them all that THEY don’t understand science, while (of course) I do.

So statistically speaking, here we have one of the most poorly educated slices of American society opining about the ignorance of one of the best educated. Is it any wonder that the creationist battle centers around education?

Comment #17878

Posted by colleen on February 24, 2005 04:01 PM (e) (s)

It’s deja vous, all over again. (from Yogi Bera)  I can’t wait.

Comment #17879

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 24, 2005 04:15 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finely wrote:

The charge of “philosophy” (usually meant pejoratively in the sense of “metaphysics) is commonplace on this board. The implication seems to be that philosophical positions are invalid for some reason, or that they don’t measure up to “scientific” ones, perhaps because they cannot be verified or falsified, etc. I would be interested to learn the opinions of the PT community on this score.

I don’t believe that is the case.  Philosophy is a wonderful thing and all, but a philosopher is typically not schooled in the relevant technical issues like a scientist is.  They don’t necessarily need to know any science at all.  Ultimately, scientific issues are determined by scientists.  Philosophers are more like after-the-fact commentators.  That’s not knocking them or anything, it’s just pointing out that they are not the top authorities on this matter.  Why does the DI rely so heavily on non-science academics?  Probably because few scientists think that ID has anything going for it — with nothing that can be empirically tested, it’s pretty much irrelevant to science.  From a philosophical standpoint, ID might be worthy of consideration, but the DI people don’t refer to ID as a philosophy, nor do they proposing to teach it in a philosophy class. 

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields.

I don’t agree.  Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science.  I can’t think of a single one.

Comment #17880

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

I just posted on Talk Origins about how such comments bother me. Creationism and ID, without thorough mainstream science rebuttal, don’t belong in religious schools, churches or Sunday schools any more than they do in public schools, because that is tantamount to bearing false witness.

Um, in the view of those who don’t hold the beliefs being professed in those schools and churchs, everything presented there is tantamount to bearing false witness.  It’s really rather silly to complain that Creationism doesn’t belong in Sunday school, and is likely to be seen as butting in where you don’t belong.  If you’re going to demand equal time for “mainstream science rebuttal” in church, you’re inviting the turnaround argument from the Creationists that they should be able to offer rebuttal in science class.  Insisting that they are bearing false witness but you aren’t just begs the question — says who?

Comment #17881

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

I suppose if most scientists disagreed with MY religion, I would also hold the opinion that they are (except for the rare newsworthy genius) all bottle washers, floor sweepers, and otherwise uninformed and thoughtless automatons.[quote]

This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist’s inability to seperate distinct issues. What has “my religion” to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter?

[quote]I would assume that without the philosophical background I assume they lack, they are universally unaware of the scientific foundations of the very work they do for a living.

My experience with scientists, which is not expansive but also not exceedingly limited, is that they are usually naive realists. They believe that the human confrontation of nature is unproblematic. Some that I have known believe a warmed over version of logical positivism without any knowledge of its death or why it died.

If scientists are to hold philosophy qua mode of explanation in contempt, which many of the posters on this blog clearly do, they better be able to defend a version of positivism.

Comment #17882

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 04:33 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science. I can’t think of a single one.

I’m not sure how seriously to take this question, but let me hit a few of my personal favorites: (1) Aristotle, referred to by his fans as “The Philosopher,” founded most of the theoretical sciences, the philosophy of science, and invented formal logic, (2) Descartes replaced the medieval concept of relational space with the modern concept of extentional space, and invented analytic geometry, (3) Leibniz invented calculus (independently of Newton), and (4) Frege, Russell and Whitehead invented mathematical logic.

Add to these the philosophers of science from Pascal to Kuhn, Bacon to Quine who have attempted to set science on firm ground.

Comment #17883

Posted by David Heddle on February 24, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science.  I can’t think of a single one.

Ernst Mach

Comment #17884

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 04:38 PM (e) (s)

Name a specific instance in which a philosopher has made a significant contribution to any field of theoretical science.  I can’t think of a single one.

It’s worthwhile remembering that science grew out of philosophy; Isaac Newton and many other scientists of past centuries called themselves “natural philosophers”.  But to answer your question more directly … I think Daniel Dennett has made a significant contribution to cognitive science, not just by virtue of bringing interest to the field through such works as “Consciousness Explained”, but through his work as the director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts.  Someone else who comes to mind is Aaron Sloman, a philosopher who teaches Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science.  He notes in his CV that he sees “AI as the best way to do philosophy.”  Notably, these are scientifically informed philosophers who make contributions to science primarily by virtue of doing philosophically informed science .

Comment #17885

Posted by colleen on February 24, 2005 04:41 PM (e) (s)

It’s deja vu all over again. (Yogi Berra). Sorry. And 10 days?

Comment #17886

Posted by Scott Davidson on February 24, 2005 05:06 PM (e) (s)

It’s not so much to do with the nature of Michael Finley’s religion, so much as the nature of his post.

Michael Finley wrote”

My own opinion is that scientists, excepting the exceptional such as Newton, Darwin and Einstein, are little more than data collectors, accountants of natural phenomena. They are, as a rule, ill-equipped to examine their own disciplines critically, or to venture into the more theoretical areas of their fields. They are in need (often desperate need) of philosphers to clean up the mangled mass of concepts they employ.

You’re making some fairly wide generalisations about scientists.  I’d like to think I’m a little bit more than just a data collector seeing as that is only where the process of science begins.  There’s all that background knowledge about sytems (be they biological, or any other), and where that data fits and how to interpret it.  This is the fun bit.  :)

Nevertheless the issue is about teaching science.  There is plenty of room to teach the scientific method and philosophy of science (I think) however, while ID may cut it in some philosophical circles it isn’t science.

Comment #17887

Posted by Rupert Goodwins on February 24, 2005 05:08 PM (e) (s)

ts said:

It’s worthwhile remembering that science grew out of philosophy; Isaac Newton and many other scientists of past centuries called themselves “natural philosophers”.

Which puts me in mind of the old joke from the days when there was natural philosophy and moral philosophy: “Philosophy: if it’s natural, it isn’t moral and if it’s moral, it isn’t natural”. Which does sum up both sides of the Creationist nonscience versus evolutionary science rather nicely, I suppose, if implying rather too much equivalence.

R

Comment #17888

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 24, 2005 05:08 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finely wrote:

I’m not sure how seriously to take this question, but let me hit a few of my personal favorites: (1) Aristotle, referred to by his fans as “The Philosopher,” founded most of the theoretical sciences, the philosophy of science, and invented formal logic, (2) Descartes replaced the medieval concept of relational space with the modern concept of extentional space, and invented analytic geometry, (3) Leibniz invented calculus (independently of Newton), and (4) Frege, Russell and Whitehead invented mathematical logic.

Add to these the philosophers of science from Pascal to Kuhn, Bacon to Quine who have attempted to set science on firm ground.

I am aware that there was a point in time where there was no distinction between science and philosophy, but we’re talking about today, not ancient history.  Aristotle?  You don’t say. 

Simply listing philosophers of science and saying that they “attempted to set science on firm ground” is not what I asked for.  We all agree that this is what philosophers of science do.  But it does not make them scientific theorists, much less superior in this regard to those with scientific training, which is what you claimed. 

Keeping things within the timeframe of the scientific revolution, I’ll try again: what modern scientific theories came from philosphers?  (Mathematical logic and the calculus aren’t scientific theories.)  Again, I can’t think of any, though I might grant ts’s point that Dennet has made important contributions to cognitive science (I don’t know enough to say).  But even assuming we can scrape up one or two, I think it’s quite clear that the overwhelming majority of scientific theorizing comes from those with backgrounds in science, not philosophy.

Comment #17889

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 24, 2005 05:16 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

Ernst Mach

Yes, Mach is the kind of person I’m looking for.  Thanks.

Comment #17890

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 05:39 PM (e) (s)

I suppose if most scientists disagreed with MY religion, I would also hold the opinion that they are (except for the rare newsworthy genius) all bottle washers, floor sweepers, and otherwise uninformed and thoughtless automatons.

This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist’s inability to seperate distinct issues. What has “my religion” to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter?

Perhaps you may find a clue in the fact that the discussion here is the teaching of science, not the teaching of “truth-seeking”.  And philosophy may be many things, but objective and disciplined it isn’t, and the truth-seeking is often questionable — certainly when someone fails to address the point that they have brashly mischaracterized what scientists do, and instead makes a hasty generalization (“paradigmatic example”, indeed), truth-seeking does not seem to be in the forefront.  If we can say that most scientists other than Newton, Darwin and Einstein are little more than data collectors, then we might say of most philosophers other than Frege, Russell, and Whitehead that they are pompous ego-ridden academic hacks who squabble interminably amongst themselves, have no coherent methodology or means of settling disputes, whose knowledge of the real world is barely advanced over Aristotle’s, and who have produced virtually nothing of value.  I frankly think there’s more truth to the latter than to the former.

My experience with scientists, which is not expansive but also not exceedingly limited, is that they are usually naive realists. They believe that the human confrontation of nature is unproblematic. Some that I have known believe a warmed over version of logical positivism without any knowledge of its death or why it died.

Since logical positivism was more or less an attempt to force all philosophy to follow the the scientific method and to apply scientific verification to linguistic meaning, it really doesn’t have any bearing on science or the teaching of science.  OTOH, the death of logical positivism has no bearing on the validity of naive realism, if you are using the term in anything like its standard meaning.

If scientists are to hold philosophy qua mode of explanation in contempt, which many of the posters on this blog clearly do, they better be able to defend a version of positivism.

Well no, actually, there’s no reason for someone who holds philosophy as a mode of explanation in contempt to defend a philosophical position, and no consequence will follow from them failing to do so.  This is one of the major differences between scientists and philosophers, and between scientific explanation versus philosophical explanation — science actually gets things done, it produces effects beyond changing people’s opinions.  Scientists had better get science right or else they won’t be able to produce effective drugs, smaller and faster memory devices, and so on.  But they had better be able to defend a version of positivism or else what, exactly?

In any case, methodological naturalism, which is what scientists do, not what they profess, is quite defensible, while  ID is not defensible as science, philosophy, or any other sort of endeavor, since it is predicated on demonstrably false empirical claims.

Comment #17891

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 24, 2005 06:04 PM (e) (s)

If scientists are to hold philosophy qua mode of explanation in contempt, which many of the posters on this blog clearly do, they better be able to defend a version of positivism.

Boy, that’s a picture of the problem in a nutshell.  Most scientists I know wouldn’t know where to find a philosophy book in a library (though they could, eventually, with a card catalog).  Philosophy isn’t something the scientists worry about.  Steve Reuland is correct, scientists worry about getting the science right.

And for good reason.  If the drugs don’t work right, the organ transplant fails.  If the measures of the air pollutants are incorrect, a non-polluter pays a huge fine, or a polluter goes free.  There are real consequences to real science. 

“Logical positivism?”  If that’s not related somehow to the battery power system to make by hoohaw spectrometer portable, if I’m a scientist, I don’t have time to bother with it.

We might as well insist our auto mechanics and dentists make a defense of positivism before we allow them to work on cars or teeth, for all the good it does to complain about the philosophy of scientists. 

Most scientists I know function under a version of the Scout Law — a scientist is truthful, and honest, and seeks always to improve the data collection to get more accurate results.

When religious folk take them to task for being honest and forthright, they have a right to look at the religious folk as if they were just a bit befuddled, if not totally insane.

Comment #17892

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 06:18 PM (e) (s)

[quote-Scott Davidson]…while ID may cut it in some philosophical circles it isn’t science.[/quote]

I agree, but what’s your point. I suspect your emphasis on “isn’t” is the very thing I’m interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., “isn’t science, and therefore, isn’t deserving of serious consideration.” And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

What, for instance, makes scientific modes of inquiry superior to metaphysical, phenomenological or conceptual (e.g., “natural language philosophy”) modes of inquiry?

If ID were to “cut it” as philosophy (and it may not), though not as science, would an intelligent person be justified in dismissing it out of hand because it isn’t science? In other words, can their be objective truths about the world we live in that, while accessible to human reason, are inaccessible to science? Could ID be correct and not scientific? If not, why not? Whence the privilege of science?

Comment #17893

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 06:28 PM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote:

We might as well insist our auto mechanics and dentists make a defense of positivism before we allow them to work on cars or teeth, for all the good it does to complain about the philosophy of scientists.

Of course I agree. A division of labor is necessary and beneficial. Normally the practice of science and philosophy keep their distance. Philosophers worry about the dynamics of paradigms and scientists worry about the supernovas and snails. When it comes to the ultimate causes in nature, however, the two disciplines start to step on each others toes. And my primary point is this: It’s not immediately clear whose turf it is.

Comment #17894

Posted by Michael Finely on February 24, 2005 06:30 PM (e) (s)

Make that “ultimate causes of nature.”

Comment #17895

Posted by Don T. Know on February 24, 2005 06:31 PM (e) (s)

Now, at the last minute, they have hatched a plan to put evolution on trial for 10 days, with no standards of evidence, none of the rules found in a normal trial, no rules for what counts as a “scientist” or an “expert”, and no limitation that the “witnesses” be from Kansas.

A circus to be sure. But, as long as there is going to be cross examination, I’m confident that IDC will be exposed as the fraud that it is. As for the bible-humpers in the audience, no amount of evidence is going to dislodge their childhood fantasies. It will be for the larger audience of the nation that the IDCists need to be disabused of their nonsense.

Comment #17896

Posted by Don T. Know on February 24, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

For all the glib chuckling at ID, we’re losing ground to them, not gaining it.  They (both the ID movement in particular and the anti-SoCaS movement in general) are playing this smart, as if it were a long-term chess game where they are racking up  the pieces they need, framing the discussions the ay they want.  They are playing politics.

Unfortunately, simplicity and soundbites sell a lot better than complexity and elaboration. If you can figure out a way to simplify and soundbite-ize evolution without selling it short, I’m all for it.

Comment #17897

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 06:59 PM (e) (s)

“[quote-Scott Davidson]”

Ya know, a scientist might have figured that quoting thing out by now.

I agree, but what’s your point. I suspect your emphasis on “isn’t” is the very thing I’m interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., “isn’t science, and therefore, isn’t deserving of serious consideration.” And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

Uh, no, it ISN’T science.  That is, it IS NOT science.  i.e., it isn’t science.  And, by the way, it isn’t science.  So, is it science?  No, it isn’t.

Therefore, it shouldn’t be taught in science classes — that just might be the point, since that is the subject of discussion.

As for why there are feelings of superiority, I’d say your sort of approach to reasoning might engender them.

What, for instance, makes scientific modes of inquiry superior to metaphysical, phenomenological or conceptual (e.g., “natural language philosophy”) modes of inquiry?

Effectiveness.

In other words, can their be objective truths about the world we live in that, while accessible to human reason, are inaccessible to science?

“1+1=2” is an objective truth, and accessible to human reason.  It isn’t really “about the world we live in”, since it is true of all possible worlds.  It is not a consequence of empirical investigation, so in that sense is “inaccessible to science.

Could ID be correct and not scientific?

ID is in fact incorrect, since it asserts that various structures cannot be the product of evolution, when they can.  Perhaps you mean the raw claim that something somewhere that appears to have been a product of evolution was actually “designed”.  If the fact of design is “inaccessible to science” and yet this is an “objective truth”, that implies a very naive form of realism.  I have no trouble with such naive realism, but you called it into question.  However, as to whether such an objective truth could be inaccessible to science but accessible to human reason — no, that’s not possible, because the only such claims are analytical claims, like “1+1=2”, and “it looks like it could have evolved but was actually designed” is an empirical claim.  All empirical claims are contingent, and thus not derivable through reason.

Whence the privilege of science?

There’s no “privilege” here — the truth of design in this case is inaccessible to science, ex hypothesi.  The only privilege claimed is that of those who take their own opinions — “it was designed” — and claim them to be “accessible to human reason” and label them “objective truth”.

Science isn’t the sort of thing that can have “privilege”.  But it does have success, because science is an activity based upon an information-gathering and error-correcting methodology.  Science harnesses human effort, observation, and reason together so as to produce inferences to the best explanation.  Science isn’t something that was pulled out of a hat, it developed — evolved — as a matter of “best practices”.  We do science rather than something else because it’s successful; it works; above all, it’s effective.  Come up with another such methodology and we can discuss which is “superior”.

Comment #17898

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 07:11 PM (e) (s)

Philosophers worry about the dynamics of paradigms and scientists worry about the supernovas and snails. When it comes to the ultimate causes in nature, however, the two disciplines start to step on each others toes. And my primary point is this: It?s not immediately clear whose turf it is.  When it comes to the ultimate causes in nature, however, the two disciplines start to step on each others toes. And my primary point is this: It?s not immediately clear whose turf it is.

Surely you aren’t under the impression that ID has something to do with “the ultimate causes of nature”?  That might explain your problem.

And really — what do people worrying about paradigms have to say on the subject of the ultimate causes of nature?  This is a bait and switch.  Philosophers are competent to make observations about paradigms — that goes to language and meaning and conceptualization (although scientists are as likely to be familiar with these subjects as philosophers).  But metaphysical speculation is just that — speculation — and philosophers have no special epistemological standing.  Any philosopher who claims to have “objective truth” that is “inaccessible to science” but reached through “human reason” about “the ultimate causes of nature” is full of crap.  There’s certainly no reason to believe such a claim, and nothing  lost by rejecting it.

Comment #17899

Posted by SteveS on February 24, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Whence the privilege of science?

I do think it’s appropriate to privilege science in science classes.

Comment #17900

Posted by Don T. Know on February 24, 2005 07:16 PM (e) (s)

If you want to go on pretending that all will be well, that we can get by purely by dint of our righteousness, then you are in for the same surprise that liberals had when they realized in 2004 that there were more conservatives out there than them, and they were way more pissed than liberals had imagined.

Nobody is impressed with a “wartime” 50/50 outcome except those who think 50% “conservative” > 50% “liberal.” Election 2004 only demonstrated that human beings are just as easily manipulated today (by appeal to primitive prejudices and fears) as they have been in the past. An Information Revolution has not changed that. The problems we have today - overcoming the sound bite mentality - is rooted in short-attention spans of spoiled westerners that expected immediacy in their gratifications.

Comment #17901

Posted by SteveS on February 24, 2005 07:33 PM (e) (s)

Really, though, this whole discussion of science vs. philosophy is a red herring. The full sentence containing the verbiage that Mr. Finley objects to read as follows:

Undoubtedly what is planned is that the Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists who’ve never managed to publish original research confirming “intelligent design” will invade Kansas and attempt to give their pseudoscience some thin illusion of respectability.

This isn’t even remotely an attack on philosophy per se, or even on the notion that philosophers can have anything to say about what is or isn’t science. The criticism is directed quite specifically at those philosophers who have attached themselves to the Discovery Institute, and who argue in favor of intelligent design.

The point is that we can expect to see a bunch of people without relevant qualifications arguing about the validity of evolutionary theory. That they happen to be philosophers is neither here nor there. What matters is that they’re not experts in the field under discussion.

Comment #17902

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 07:34 PM (e) (s)

SteveS wrote:

I do think it’s appropriate to privilege science in science classes.

I agree. Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., “DNA copying alterations” or some such phrase instead of “random DNA copying errors”? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

Comment #17903

Posted by Michael Finley on February 24, 2005 07:39 PM (e) (s)

SteveS:

I admit the topic as I’ve pushed it has little to do with Kansas. I am in agreement that philosophical positions have no business in a science class, and I take ID to be an empirically based philosophical position.

I siezed on “philosophers” to have an out-of-place discussion, and I apologize if this has irked those among you who would prefer to talk about Kansas. My bar is much lower than the ID crowd’s: I want philosophy out of science classes.

Comment #17905

Posted by Michael Finely on February 24, 2005 07:42 PM (e) (s)

SteveS:

I admit the topic as I’ve pushed it has little to do with Kansas. I am in agreement that philosophical positions have no business in a science class, and I take ID to be an empirically based philosophical position.

I siezed on “philosophers” to have an out-of-place discussion, and I apologize if this has irked those among you who would prefer to talk about Kansas. My bar is much lower than the ID crowd’s: I want philosophy out of science classes.

Comment #17906

Posted by Scott Davidson on February 24, 2005 07:50 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote

I agree, but what’s your point. I suspect your emphasis on “isn’t” is the very thing I’m interested in. The emphasis is derogatory, i.e., “isn’t science, and therefore, isn’t deserving of serious consideration.” And if I am correct in my characterization, what is the ground of this feeling of superiority?

The original topic here is bringing ID into the science classrooms of Kansas as legitimate science.  It may be grounds for philosophical disscussion but without some evidence (maybe a “designer” autopsy perhaps) I don’t think there is a place for it in the science classroom.  ID isn’t science, it’s a belief claim.  I’d compare the claims of ID to Sagan’s “invisible fire breathing dragon in the garage.”  Science is evidence based, not faith based.

I can’t tell you if ID makes for good philosophy, I’m not a philosopher), but I think I can claim that as a sceintific explanation it rests upon about as much ground as the reptile with halitosis.

Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., “DNA copying alterations” or some such phrase instead of “random DNA copying errors”?

Umm, because where they occur is random?  Unless you want to imply that there is a reason why they happen?
Why did the DNA sequence change at this point and not some other location?
Chance.

Comment #17908

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 08:10 PM (e) (s)

I agree. Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is how science is done; leaving it out of science classes is whacked.  Metaphysical naturalism is something different altogether, a metaphysical claim against the existence of God, souls, etc.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., “DNA copying alterations” or some such phrase instead of “random DNA copying errors”? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

“random” refers to lack of biologically significant pattern in the occurrence, which is an essential matter, and leaving it out of science classes is whacked.  And the causes are all natural phenomena of physics and chemistry; refusing to talk of such things in science classes is whacked.

I want philosophy out of science classes.

Ignorant philosophers with metaphysical axes to grind trying to mandate whacky restrictions on discussing scientific matters  in science classes puts philosophy into science classes.

Comment #17909

Posted by GCT on February 24, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., “DNA copying alterations” or some such phrase instead of “random DNA copying errors”? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

Metaphysical naturalism?  That’s an oxy-moron if I’ve ever heard one.

You seem to be hung up (now) on the whole naturalism is bad and, I presume, science is atheistic argument advanced by people like the DI.  If we teach that the mutations are random, then we are indoctrinating children to grow up and be atheists.  Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Let me assure you that there is no conspiracy by atheist scientists to indoctrinate our children.  As Scott Davidson said, “Where they [the copying errors] occur is random.”  Random does not equal atheism, and you can go home and believe that god is the one that made the mutation happen at that spot, but science does not interject god because it is religion neutral.  If we start saying that the mutations are guided or happen for a reason, then we bring philosophy/religion into the classroom, and I thought you said you didn’t want that (in posts #17903 and #17905.)

Comment #17910

Posted by ts on February 24, 2005 08:19 PM (e) (s)

Umm, because where they occur is random?  Unless you want to imply that there is a reason why they happen?
Why did the DNA sequence change at this point and not some other location?
Chance.

This is a somewhat different matter.  The distribution of mutations is random — that’s an objective fact.  As to why the sequence changed in one place or another, that’s not something that’s talked about.  If Finley wants to leave open the possibility that God selects which mutations occur, but does so in such a way that the distribution appears random, that’s fine, because that possibility is already open, and there are more than a few evolutionary biologists who believe just that.  But that simply isn’t what is meant when it is claimed that mutations happen “at random”.

Comment #17911

Posted by Flint on February 24, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

This is a paradigmatic example of the naturalistically committed scientist’s inability to seperate distinct issues. What has “my religion” to do with the undue glorification of science over other objective, truth-seeking disciplines such as philosophy? What has it to do with ID for that matter?

This is a subtle question, perhaps. Very clearly, Finley has derided scientists as not particularly aware of the basis of what they do, nor particularly curious about the philosophical underpinnings of their work. He has characterized scientists as rather dull and uninspired record-keepers.

This characterization of scientists is rather extraordinary, really. Nobody is talking about “undue” glorification of science, but rather merely recognizing what science has accomplished in terms of understanding the natural world. In only maybe 3 centuries, science has produced workable explanations exceeding by orders of magnitude what over 5 centuries of religion was able to accomplish. Why should this record of success be belittled, or those who achieved it denigrated?

Ah, this is where the “my religion” comes in. Perhaps the single most powerful scientific theory ever developed makes statements Michael Finley finds uncongenial. He finds these statements uncongenial for purely religious reasons. This sets up a certain dissonance: if science is truly as capable as it has demonstrated, it’s very likely that several of Finley’s doctrines of faith must undergo substantive modification. This latter being simply unthinkable, the alternative is to pretend that science indeed HAS NOT done what it has. This tension can be alleviated by dismissing science as unglorious, pretending its track record is no better than that of (for example) Aristotle (who was wrong about everything he considered!), and that its practitioners are menials unable or unwilling to reflect about the Deeper Meaning of what they do.

In the vernacular, this attitude is referred to as “sour grapes” (from an Aesop fable). If Finley could lay aside his religious burden so as to reach the grapes, I guarantee he would find they are not nearly as sour as he currently feels obliged to believe.

Comment #17913

Posted by Flint on February 24, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)

Oops, make that five MILLENIA of religious futility in trying to explain and manipulate the world.

Comment #17916

Posted by Mike Dunford on February 24, 2005 09:25 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

I get the impression that Mr. Matzke believes “circus of medicine-men, ambulance chasers and alchemists” would be equally suitable. I can understand the inclusion of lawyers; no one cares for lawyers? I also understand (but disagree) with your characterization of ID scientists. What puzzles me is that philosophers are heading up the parade.

Although I can’t speak for Nick, I suspect that the reason that he referred to the “Discovery Institute circus of philosophers, lawyers, and a few scientists” is that the majority of the Discovery Institutes CSC fellows fall into one of those three categories - if you go through the list of CSC fellows, you’ll find that there are a dozen philosophers, a dozen scientists (estimated liberally), and four lawyers.

—Mike Dunford

Comment #17917

Posted by Bruce McNeely on February 24, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:
Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.
Why not teach evolution, and modify the teaching of neo-Darwinian mechanisms to leave aside talk of chance as the cause of mutation, etc. Simply talk of mutation and natural selection without committing to the cause of mutation, e.g., “DNA copying alterations” or some such phrase instead of “random DNA copying errors”? What is lost here but the underlying naturalism?

So, would you suggest suppressing mention of chance in other areas of science, such as quantum mechanics and meteorology? I would suggest that you read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God” (I hope the title is correct) for a great explanation of the role of chance and randomness in evolutionary theory, and how it is compatible with faith in God.

Comment #17918

Posted by Air Bear on February 24, 2005 10:12 PM (e) (s)

plunge wrote:

From what I see, too many of us seem to think that just because we can refute their arguments, all is well and good.  But we win those battles almost always at the expense of losing the war.

We need more political wings to go right out into these communities and push clear, powerful messages about the importance of clearly delineated science and the values of religious tolerance.

I think this is right on target.  The scientific community needs to get out into the public with a positive message, not merely asserting that scientific experts know the answers.

And, as plunge says, this was a larger problem in the elections last November; just because one side has the logical arguments on their side doesn’t mean that they’re going to persuade people.

Comment #17919

Posted by Air Bear on February 24, 2005 10:24 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:
Nevertheless, the teaching of science needs to be delimited in such a way that metaphysical naturalism stays out of science classes as well. Leave the philosophy to philosophy classes. Metaphysical versus methodological naturalism is a distinction without a difference. Methodological naturalism produces naturalistic conclusions, i.e., conclusions dependent on metaphysical naturalism.

Let’s put it plainly - modern science is naturalist.  As long as natural philosophy dealt with Final Causes, it went nowhere.  Only with the (gradual) limiting to naturalism did modern science start to move beyond its centuries-long statis.

And naturalism isn’t so bad.  Engineers, accounants, business managers, political scientists, historians, economists, journalists, etc. etc. etc. stick to naturalism in their daily work, whatever their personal creeds and philosophies.  And there’s no outcry against them, at least as yet.  Imagine a high school business math course where the teacher was forced to inform the students that reputable philosophers believe that the economy is guided by the unseen hand of God.

Comment #17920

Posted by Les Lane on February 24, 2005 11:03 PM (e) (s)

Only two things are necessary to make the hearing scientific.  Firstly the number speakers representing a point of view should be proportional to the number of papers in the scientific literature which represent that point of view.  Second, propositional logic should be disallowed.  Only scientific hypotheses, experimental tests and experimental results should be presented.

Comment #17922

Posted by DaveScot on February 25, 2005 12:18 AM (e) (s)

Nick Matzke wrote:

(1) Who hatched this idea in the first place?  Who set up the “rules”?  Who is really running the show?

The duly elected Kansas Board of Education, of course.

(2) Why was this new, highly irregular procedure tacked onto the normal procedures at the last minute?  Was the problem that only creationists supported the Intelligent Design Network revisions at the regular public comment sessions?

To get expert opinion from both sides on the record.

(3) Can science be redefined based on a bare majority on a state school board?  (The conservatives gained a 6-4 majority in the last election, which is why this is happening now)

Yes.  Democracy’s a real bitch sometimes.

(4) Should the real scientific community participate in this show trial at all?  Why can’t “intelligent design” follow the route taken by every other idea in the science classrooms — peer-reviewed publishing, acceptance by the scientific community, and finally incorporation into the introductory textbooks?  Why is ID forced to “cut in line” via political means?

Because the scientific community is heavily weighted by atheists and any challenge to atheistic evolutionary theory doesn’t get a fair hearing through regular channels.

Why is the all-powerful mutation/selection hypothesis forced to defend itself by the ACLU is the salient question.  Can’t it stand scrutiny on its own merits?  Evidently not.

By the way, Kansas is only going to get ridiculed by minorities in other states.  Majorities are applauding.  Evidently someone doesn’t have mu