Some Good Arguments, Some Missing the Point, and Much Flaming Abuse, Invective, and Ad Hominem Fun
Dean
Steve was missing the most important point I think, but was decent enough about it.
The Commissar finally honed in on the most important question, one that should be asked at every opportunity of those who advocate for I.D. Too bad the Commissar couldn't avoid mis-stating what I said and believe, and ignoring every actual point I've made, and playing host to a bunch of commenters who chose to jump all over me personally rather than answering anything I'd actually written or said.
A special treat was watching Jack Grant state an outright falsehood about me in the Commissar's comments (I mean, really Jack, when have I ever once shut down comments on you, or failed to acknowledge I don't know something?). Then there was of course the typically abusive and dishonest invective from the sort of people that Fred Reed described so perfectly. These are the kind of people who've done so much to give modern scientists a bad name.
To quote a recent email:
Dean,I'm an I.D. proponent and a medical researcher. I have been bothered by the free-speech and censorship issues that the Dover case raises, that have been pretty much ignored by the mainstream media and the Darwinists. Regardless of the actual scientific issues, the parents in Dover ought to be able to teach their kids what they want to, with broad lattitude.
Thanks for your excellent posts, and for speaking up for civility and for real liberalism.
Mike
I took the liberty of checking Mike's email address and credentials; he is indeed on the faculty of a respected medical research school. I wasn't surprised. I've come across a surprising number of physicians who are interested in this subject. He appears to want to remain anonymous and that's fine (although I'm very sure some will say I'm a liar and I forged the mail or the guy's identity or something).
I should make it very clear that I still do not endorse the I.D. concept. I never have. However, I think that whenever I.D. proponents, creationists, or others on the edge of accepted science raise valid objections to current theory they should be openly acknowledged, without fear or concern about whatever "damage" such acknowledgements would do. I also think the broad questions some of them raise are perfectly legitimate lines of inquiry, and that clearly at least some real scientists are interested in them (no matter how tiny their numbers are).
I also think that when people act as if the other side can never be right about anything, ever, they give the impression of being dogmatic defenders of a faith and not rational people.
I finally think, as I have said so many times, that we live in a democratic nation, and that we hold local school board elections for a reason. My head is still spinning at a recent suggestion that I am "making a fetish of democracy" for saying so.
Michael Balter, a writer on evolution for Science, was still right in every important respect that I can see.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Vatican Science
- The Woodstock of Evolution
- Where it belongs...
- NeoDarwinism, PostDarwinism, The Pope, and Other Dangerous Ideas
- Some Good Arguments, Some Missing the Point, and Much Flaming Abuse, Invective, and Ad Hominem Fun
- Science Is Not About "Seeking Natural Explanations"...
- Bring It? Okay, It's Been Brought
- More Discussion
- A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design
I think that Pixy Misa and Elizabeth have made superbly-stated arguments. However, I would make this point to them:
As I asked in my piece, isn't the word "supernatural" really just a meta-analysis word anyway? At some point, can we not just declare that if something happens, it is ipso facto natural?
Let me make the point again: 1) science can observe and study things it has no theoretical understanding of, yes? 2) Science can look for empirical evidence for observed phenomena that sound supernatural, yes? 3) Science can look for things by inference, yes?
The question about the leap from abiotic chemistry to life is, however, valid. It's important because all the answers to it are pure speculation--they just are. Why can't we just *say* that, because it's true? And it's not the only question like that. There is still no clear, unequivocal mechanism for speciation that is generally accepted by most biologists. Hell, Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged this, acknowledged it openly. Why is it such a problem for others to just say, "you know what? You're right, we have some educated guesses but we can't say we're fully certain."
And ultimately I still get down to the surveys that Michael Balter pointed to, which so clearly show that a majority, an overwhelming majority depending on how you look at it, have skepticism about Darwinism. To me, it's not enough to say "well science isn't about opinion polls," because let me tell you, these people vote, these people pay taxes and they vote. If you're accepting taxpayer money, you answer to taxpayers and don't get to stamp a big "I'm a scientist, I don't answer to you!" label on your chest.
If nothing else, that's *horribly* counterproductive.
These voters, these taxpayers, fund the vast majority of the science research done in this country, as well as the majority of scientists' salaries. Treating them with contempt is not in my view either smart politics OR particularly decent behavior, scientist or no.
Look at me. I'm an educated layman. I'm smart. I've loved science my whole life. I read peer reviewed studies for fun (and who the hell does that except weirdos like me and Elizabeth Reid anyway?). I have friends, quite a few, who are published and respected scientists. I'm irreligious. I have *huge* disagreements with many Christians. I'm open-minded and inquisitive.
And yet people like this and this seem to think that being abusive toward me, treating me like an ignoramus and a dunce and worse, is the proper response when I point out such simple facts as:
1) There are a lot of things we don't know. It's okay to admit that. Some of them are pretty big questions. We *think* we know how life evolved, but we've got big gaps in the *how* part, and it's okay to be skeptical about that.
2) Life looks to you like it might have been engineered by forces we don't understand? Okay, that's an interesting point. I can see where you're coming from. You think God had a hand in it? Okay, I get what you're saying. Can we get on with the experiments please?
I contend that this, ultimately, is all I've *EVER* said, the only real position I've ever taken. Maybe I haven't said it well enough but I invite you to go back to my previous comments and tell me where I was inconsistent on this point. I don't think I have, even if once in a while I've gotten sarcastic when I shouldn't have.
I know this is repeating, but:
Stephen Jay Gould thought there had to be more than this, that it was nowhere near enough. I mean, the biggest problem right there is that no one can coherently explain how a genetic mutation can wind up fundamentally altering your chromosomal structures. Look carefully at the subject of speciation and you'll find that it's way more wild and woolly than is often made out.
Does that mean "God does it?" I dunno, define God. *Maybe* it's some force we don't understand. Or maybe it's something simple and obvious staring us right in the face (I know one molecular biologist who thinks he knows, and he's getting some serious attention for it in the molecular biology community for it—you may hear more about it in the popular news in the next few years).
But from the time I was a kid, I was taught that one of the fundamentals of the practice of science is to always be willing to concede what you don't know. I mean, cripes, isn't that where it all starts? "I don't know, let's see what we can find out?"
<i>"...I think that whenever I.D. proponents, creationists, or others on the edge of accepted science raise valid objections to current theory they should be openly acknowledged, without fear or concern about whatever "damage" such acknowledgements would do."</i>
Could you state clearly here what it is you think ID activists have raised that is a valid objection to current evolutionary theory?
I realize it comes from someone emailing you, but this:
Is just patently ridiculous. Parents are free to teach their kids whatever they want. They are not, however, free to dictate via the schoolboard that thinly veiled religious proselytizing should be wedged into science classes, no matter how tiny they may try and make it.
Dale
I bought a copy of _Of Pandas And People_ yesterday, and if we want to talk about the Dover case, it might be worthwhile to talk about the specific claims in the book. I'm going to read it this weekend, if Dean wants I'm willing to work up a 'top five most problematic claims' list.
What is so different about this one specific theory that causes so many to insist that the scientific method be ignored, and in effect, trumped by the courts?
The Dover folks aren’t saying that evolution is wrong. They are saying that it is just one theory on the origin of life, and other theories exist.
What is so heinous, offensive, or even unscientific about that statement that requires it to be banned from the classroom?
Also, the commissar is a proven stereotypical antifanatic.
One of the motivating forces behind the ID movement is that many biologists have an explicitly atheistic philosophy of science, and include that philosophical atheism in their presentation of the scientific facts of evolution, without distinguishing between the two.
The place to discuss ID is in a philosophy class. The place to discuss mechanistic atheism is in a philosophy class. The place to discuss evolution through natural selection is in a biology class.
But lets go with Sherard. Ok, who determines something is not science?
I asked someone if they thought a board of Nobel prize winners was a good idea for that task. They said yes.
Wrong answer.
I'll tell you who determines it in the great majority of cases. The local school board. And if you have any other answer, then at best you are an anti-federalist, and at worst you are a tyrant.
This is dead simple stuff. If NYC schools decide to start teaching the Classical Four Elements of the Universe theory as Science because their school boards were elected on that platform, then who are you to walk in their with your court order, and your gun to tell them they can't have their democracy?
I actually agree with most of what you said. And personally, I think the ID stuff is bogus.
But lets take questions about the validity ID out of the equation. Shouldn’t a biology teacher be permitted to say:
“Evolution is a theory that is often used to explain the origin of life. There are other explanations, but the state does not allow us to discuss them here.”
Is that not a truthful statement? And what is the potential harm in having a biology teacher make such a statement?
And it is ultimately an issue of freedom. Do the parents of a local school district control the curriculum or don't they? Continually denying this essential freedom--representatative government--in the name of science is horrendously destructive.
John: Yeah. A valid objection is that the leap from abiotic to biotic has been repeatedly tested for and has so far turned up even worse results than the parapsychologists--and while some claim that this question is outside Darwin, other Darwinists assert that it's front-and-center. Not their critics, but the neo-Darwinists themselves.
Another valid criticism is that despite all the handwaving, the truth is that we have no clear mechanism for speciation. We don't. Stephen Jay Gould admitted this, and yet today he's often invoked by people to say that natural selection and random mutation are enough to explain life's diversity. That is completely antithetical to what he said for most of his life.
Indeed, despite all the claims that Darwin makes predictions, the truth is that if you read his original Origin of Species (here is a copy right here) you'll find that much of what he said is no longer accepted, and some of it's wrong.
I can go on, but should I?
The Commissar I must say is normally a rational guy. I can't believe how much he's quoted me out of context, twisted my words, and turned irrationally abusive. I'm literally stunned by it. But whatever, it's his blog, I get along with him in other areas....
"Evolution is the theory that is most often used to explain the origin of life as we know it by scientists. There are other ideas, but the state has determined that they are unscientific and therefore cannot be presented in this class as anything but dangerous pseudoscience."
And this points to the trouble with the idea that it should be taken to philosophy class. First, most kids don't have any such classes. Second, because the questions raised are ones that naturally inquisitive kids would be asking in their science class. I know that I did. This is why I think Michael Balter is so on the money.
But suppose... I produce some evidence for purposeful design in nature and say that this leads me to believe that we will find a space-ship that crashed on Venus that has the blue-prints for human design hanging from their drawing board.
I might actually rationalize something like this by using some physical property that's common to humans that's also found only on Venus, to say that this means that the designer had to have gotten it from there and we need to go look to see if there's big Venutian space-base there.
If we go there and don't find the evidence, then this falsifies this ID theory to whatever level of competency the search included.
Plausibility is what kills ID, not because it isn't *distantly* plausible science.
I'm sure there's a better Star-Trek episode out there that uses similar "commonality" type of logic to say that humans were seeded or designed by an alien because... (whatever logically linking rationale goes here).
It's the plausibility that kills the backdoor-science that's behind ID, but not because ID theories aren't falsifiable... and trust me... the physicists at the Discovery Institute are fully aware of this. They didn't invent ID to replace "creation science" without a real science angle to it.
Commissar seems to think that ID necessarily means "god" because IDists don't specifically deny that it doesn't in their statement... and he holds fanatically to this cluelessness, so I'm done with him. Of course they don't deny it... has nothing to do with whether or not they can produce a natural interpretation that doesn't cross the separation between church and state.
Chris Macosko, a chemist, has an interesting op-ed piece this week. The whole thing is worth reading, but this is I think what we call the "money quote":
Just last Sunday, for instance, Boston Globe journalist Peter Dizikes wrote that "the looming presence of Intelligent Design has started having a discernible impact on evolutionary scientists" and quoted Harvard systems biologist Marc Kirschner as saying "we shouldn't dismiss (intelligent design theorists') questions, even if some are ill-intentioned."
I also repeat my observation: how could it possibly be constructive to simply tell children and their parents, "the state has determined that these ideas are unscientific and therefore cannot be presented as a formal part of this class?"
daf:
I think the most telling difference between evolutionary biologists and IDers is that the former for the most part know exactly what sort of data it would take to falsify their hypotheses while the latter don't believe their hypothesis can ever be falsified.
Given the problems evolutionary biology has had to confront (many of which are still problems), I doubt very much whether any evolutionary biologist knows any such thing in any non-tautological way.
For example, check out the objections Fred Reed raised in some of his essays. Why doesn't that data falsify evolution?
(If you ask me, evolution provides one of the canonical reasons why people take Kuhn more seriously than Popper in the philosophy of science today.)
Do you mean Fred's 4 Origin Of Life questions? Because all biologists who are studying Origin of Life hypotheses are doing so taking evolution as a given, they presuppose life evolved, then go back and track back to single celled organisms and beyond, and try to figure out how that might have happened.
Evolution is Origin of Species, not life. So really, origin of life questions about amino acids and primordial soups are irrelevant to the massive body of evidence that supports evolution.
It is a little like gravity and the big bang. We observe gravity and how it works, and measure the universe, then track it back to the big bang, and speculate what might have happened.
You don't disprove gravity by raising questions about the big bang, so Fred's questions have no impact on Evolution theory really. Course, 3 qualified No's and 1 qualfied Yes answers don't constitute much 'data'.
Hunhh? Where/what is this entirely new genomic structure that exists but cannot plausibly arise at through genetic mutation?
Jeff
What objections are you referring to in Fred Reed's essays?
Dale
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
This is not a debate about whether ID is right, and evolution is wrong, or vice versa (although that does seem to be the topic of so many comments and posts here and elswhere).
This is certainly not a declaration of the existance of God. They are not telling the kids what to think. They are telling them to understand that evolution is a theory for the origin of life, and not yet a fact. And they encourage the students to keep an open mind when it comes to theories.
What's so bad about that?
A few that have been mentioned before:
- caterpillars, which must have evolved several complicated characteristics simultaneously
- eyes, ditto
- the lack of transitional forms
- the statistical difficulties
Jay: I don't have a problem with it. Others seem to think that it will destroy kids' ability to think critically or understand the scientific method. I remain unconvinced of that; I think the more likely outcome is that kids will dicover important things about science and may become more interested in it. And I think forbidding that gives science a horrible black eye, and has only resulted in more and more image problems for the profession.
I guess I don't fall in the group that thinks explaining the first origins of life is necessary in order to explain the origins of species. I mean if we can explain the transition from chimp-like ancestor to man and chimp why do we need to worry about "carbon to corpuscle", if you will?
Obviously, the question of the origin of life is extremely important but you and the Creationists are completely wrong when you say it's "...turned up even worse results than the parapsychologists..." research in this area has made great strides and their is evidence for earlier molecular "life forms other than just watching Amino acids form in Urey/Miller type experiments. Look at RNA interference for example. This is strong evidence in support of an "RNA world" IMHO.
RM and NS are not enough to explain speciation and all evolutionary scientists know it. Drift and sex/recomination are incredibly important processes among others. Gould did not believe that the theory of evolution did not explain speciation he just suggested that the process may move in sudden bursts through punctuated equilibrium. If you think this means he disagrees with Darwin's main premise you are reading too much Creationist propaganda.
And yes, apparently you have missed something about how new chromosomes can occur.
There are several well estalished mechanisms, and lots of processes that could produce new chromosomes over time. It's not at all uncommon in plants for instance.
No, I'm not so concerned about the four questions. I think scientists tend to be more careful making claims about the primordial soup, etc. than they are about evolution.
My thesis, in sum, is that ID and evolution are joined at the hip. Both must be science, or both must not be. If you want to throw out one on a priori grounds, you must also throw the other out with it.
That's a strong way of putting it, and I'm not sure it's right even in weaker forms. But I'm not seeing much to refute it yet.
And it's not that ID must be good science, mind you; I could accept that ID is science in the same way Ptolemaic cosmology, phlogiston, and the four humours were science long ago. But few people are making that argument, as far as I can tell. Indeed, it seems some are expending effort to prevent that argument from being made at all.
..you develop new chromosome pairs through fission or lose chromsome pairs through fusion of chromosomes. Regions of chromosomes translocate from one chromosome to another, regions of chromosomes undergo inversion - these are all processes that can be observed, albeit rarely, in human beings or other animals
You just described carcinogenesis (cancer), not evolution:)
See, aneuploidy.
Hank
Chromosome changes during mitosis are associated with cancer but they aren't heritable from a person to their children. Chromosome changes during meiosis are heritable and apparently occur during evolution as demonstrated, for example, by comparing human and chimp chromosomes.
Dale
Jeff, I agree with you here, actually. But then, I think real scientists are approaching it at that way already. The few scientists proposing ID evidence in papers are getting peer reviewed and contradicted and debated at that level. This debate we see little of, because it is happening in a community few of us have access to. If their ideas take root and more investigation is done, more power too em.
The debate we're engaging in is the attempt to add it to required-by-law-schooling for minors. But this is not high school stuff. There is a difference between diffy-Q and pre calculus. This is doctorate level stuff, sophisticated math and concepts, and there is little to no evidence that can be dealt with as science at the high school level. The most you can say is a paragraph or two that sums up 'And some people think that beneath or against all this evolutionary evidence are signs of complex purpose.'
What they keep trying to add to the curriculum isn't evidence of a designer, its evidence of problems with evolution. What else is the 'equal time' going to be spent on? Which is good in one sense, because every time it happens a few years later scientists interested in the dillemna end up finding evidence that clears that up (like the eye and wing thing), so it improves our understanding. But evidence against something isn't the same thing as evidence for something else.
Indeed. Its the difference that makes no difference, and on the other hand, the difference that is all important. Like the relationship of the courts to determining truth. They don't really determine truth, they determine if someone goes to jail or not.
But you knew that already.
I'm glad to hear it. You usually only hear the negative stuff in debates, and a lot of hay has been made over that journal editor who let in an ID paper and was criticized for it.
The debate we're engaging in is the attempt to add it to required-by-law-schooling for minors. But this is not high school stuff.
I could possibly accept this, too. Mentioning that certain research is happening at the doctorate level doesn't seem harmful to me, but that's really quibbling.
But, again, this treats ID as legitimate science. As I understand the legal stuff, the argument is that ID is not science, but religion. If that's so, then (it seems to me) so is much of what is taught as evolution. At any rate, I fail to see how one can be religion and the other can't.
What they keep trying to add to the curriculum isn't evidence of a designer, its evidence of problems with evolution. What else is the 'equal time' going to be spent on?
Discussions of ID? Perhaps these parents want to expose their kids to Ph.D-level science in some fashion.
I know, all of this is driven by ideology, not a passion for science education. But if evolution teaching is also so driven, and that's OK, then why not?
Which is good in one sense, because every time it happens a few years later scientists interested in the dillemna end up finding evidence that clears that up (like the eye and wing thing), so it improves our understanding. But evidence against something isn't the same thing as evidence for something else.
Sure. That, I think, is Dean's thesis: don't be afraid of it, teach the science, and the truth will win out. As a Christian and somewhat of a creationist, I wholeheartedly support Dean on this; I am not afraid of scientific analysis. Unfortunately, a lot of real scientists seem to prefer an ideological battle, as judged by the comments Dean has been linking.
And, looking at how well the ideological battle is doing, I think I might support that as a Christian too. :-)
"....But it is not so high in the air but that great archers spend their whole lives in shooting arrows at it -- yes, and their last arrows; there are men who will ruin themselves and ruin their civilization if they may ruin also this old fantastic tale. This is the last and most outstanding fact about this faith; that its enemies will use any weapon against it, the swords that cut their own fingers and the firebrands that burn their own homes. Men who begin to fight the Church for the sake of freedom and humanity end by flinging away freedom and humanity if only they may fight the Church. This is no exaggeration; I could fill a book with instances of it. Mr. Blatchford set out, as an ordinary Bible-smasher, to prove that Adam was guiltless of sin against God; in maneuvering so as to maintain this he admitted, as a mere side-issue, that all the tyrants, from Nero to King Leopold, were guiltless of any sin against humanity. I know a man who has such a passion for proving that he will have no personal existence after death that he falls back on the position that he has no personal existence now. He invokes Buddhism and says that all souls fade into each other; in order to prove that he cannot go to heaven he proves that he cannot go to Hartlepool. I have known people who protested against religious education with arguments against any education, saying that the child's mind must grow freely or that the old must not teach the young. I have known people who showed that there could be no divine judgment by showing that there can be no human judgment, even for practical purposes. Thry burned their own corn to set fire to the church; they smashed their own tools to smash it; any stick was good enough to beat it with, though it were the last stick of their own dismembered furniture. We do not admire, we hardly excuse, the fanatic who wrecks this world for love of the other. But what are we to say of the fanatic who wrecks this world out of hatred of the other? He sacrifices the very existence of humanity to the non-existence of God. He offters his victims not to the altar, but merely to assert the idleness of the altar and the emptiness of the throne. He is ready to ruin even that primary ethic by which all things live, for his strange and eternal vengeance upon some one who never lived at all.
And yet the thing hangs in the heavens unhurt. Its opponents only succeed in destroying all that thry themselves hold dear. They do not destroy orthodoxy; they only destroy political courage and common sense...."
-G. K. Chesterton, "The Romance of Orthodoxy", Orthodoxy