Dean's World

Quoted:

Herein lies science's greatest strength: not only the ability to withstand such buffeting, but to actually grow from it. Creationists and other outsiders contend that science is a cozy and insular club in which meetings are held to enforce agreement with the party line, to circle the wagons against any and all would-be challengers, and to achieve consensus on the most contentious issues. This conclusion is so wrong that it cannot have been made by anyone who has ever attended a scientific conference. The World Summit on Evolution, like most scientific conferences, revealed a science rich in history and tradition, data and theory, as well as controversy and debate. From this I conclude that the theory of evolution has never been stronger.

Ah, but that's just the summary. May I suggest you read the whole thing?

(I gotta meet Lynn Margulis. What a neat lady.)

All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:

(link)

Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):

Intelligent Design/Creation needs an Apollo 11.

11.10.2005 8:44pm

Jeff Licquia (mail) (www):

Well, I'm convinced in one vein, and even more skeptical in another.

The SciAm paper has this quote:

"We don't have such a theory right now, and that's a problem. Without a theory, it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity'--but, as yet, no general theory of biological design." --Dr. Paul Nelson. "The Measure of Design." Touchstone magazine, 2004.

The article can be read in full here. From what I can tell, the quote is not out of context, and certainly the magazine and interviewer are sympathetic.

To me, that says that ID is at least "proto-science". But it really can't be taught in science class, because there's nothing to teach.

On the other hand, SciAm dismissed ID thusly:

I then summarized the cognitive style of ID thusly:
1. X looks designed
2. I can't think of how X was designed naturally
3. Therefore X was designed supernaturally

I myself have read quotes from Dembski refuting this characterization of ID.

So they say, "Creationists and other outsiders contend that science is a cozy and insular club in which meetings are held to enforce agreement with the party line, to circle the wagons against any and all would-be challengers, and to achieve consensus on the most contentious issues." Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, by misrepresenting the ID argument, they are reinforcing that image, not refuting it. Had they simply shut up after presenting the quotes from Dembski and Nelson, their argument would have been far more persuasive.

11.11.2005 11:56am

By the way, via InstaPundit, NPR is reporting on some more non-scientific criticism of intelligent design.

Scientists, if you want the evolution-in-schools issue to go away, you have GOT to stop acting like this.

11.11.2005 5:29pm

JFC:

Jeff,

I have some initial sympathy for Sternberg as well; I have innocently stepped into the **** myself before, and found myself suddenly in a world of hurt. But the more I read, the more my sympathy fades. It seems he independently went ahead and did something he knew would royally piss off his funding sources. Now the funding sources may be corrupt, insider, old-boy networks, or what have you, but grow up. It's their money, they call the shots. I think only a civil servant would have the right to sue over being reprimanded for using the boss's money to do something the boss strenuously objected to.

Read this comment, which I found at TheQuestionableAuthority

RPM said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even though Sternberg was shown to be a creationist (baraminologist), he did not suffer from "the threat of career ruination." His position as managing editor of PBSW was set to expire, and as a final coup d'etat he published the Meyer paper. Once his editorial duties were complete, he still retained access to the Smithsonian archives. Even though his office did move, this was also part of the scheduled change in duties. He still retains a position at NCBI (see him credited at the bottom of this page: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html/)

All Sternberg lost was whatever respect he had in the community.

I'm not sure it tells the whole story, but it sounds like real life.

What I found interesting in this big circus show is that a Holy Institution such as the Smithsonian is just as petty and political as a local school board. That's a given, but you don't often see it revealed in such naked glory.

John

11.13.2005 4:19am

Roger R (mail):

I won't try to detail the misconceptions about the Sternberg case, but will link to the details as reported by the OSC.

Office of Special Counsel "Pre-Closure Letter"

Not sure what "funding sources" you speak of, but the actions of SI employees are at issue here, and the SI is Federally chartered, receives direct govt monies, and some of the employees are officially govt employees.

So, a large part of the funding source is "us", it is "our" money, and "we" call the shots vis a vis civil service law. It is interesting spin some folks try to put on this episode, including especially Eugenie Scott.

11.13.2005 1:42pm