“The Great Debate” — Scott & Trefil vs. Sisson & Dembski

Doran, Many biologists would rather just not talk about the ID vs. Darwinism debate, and some pay lip service while being inwardly skeptical.anteater

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

08:21 PM

8

08

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Oh, I hope to live-blog the proceedings tomorrow evening. Though I doubt many readers of this site would agree with my future assessment of the events.doran

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

07:47 PM

7

07

47

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Johnnyb is correct on two counts, though both need a little clarification. He is right in that the policy of the DI is not the mandatory teaching of ID, but that teachers be free to "discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" and "bring up ID at their own discretion." On the existence of a debate over ID, it depends on among who you think the debate is occuring. If one talks about the biology community, there is no debate over the validity of Intelligent Design. Naturally the farther you get away from a training in ecology, evolution, and biochemistry, the more likely a practicing scientist will be towards ID. Yes there is a debate about ID going on, but it is political and social debate among the society as a whole rather then a strict scientific debate among academic and industry biologists.doran

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

07:46 PM

7

07

46

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The Plausability of Life post isn't active anymore so I thought I'd put this here: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867405010263 Erwin, a fellow Darwinist, reviews the book. Erwin believes they (Kirschner and Gerhart) have a “limited view of the evolutionary literature” on the subject which “undercuts most of their own arguments” in favor of facilitated variation. The book “feels more like a vision of where the field should go rather than a thoroughly constructed theory of the origins of phenotypic novelty.” In short, he sees the book as an “entertaining read” of only “introductory” value into recent trends in evolutionary theory and “with its sometimes troubling limitations, the book falls short of the major new theory that the authors promise in their introduction.” Further quote mining: "Presenting no evidence, they claim that these waves of innovation are not linked to changes in the physical environment." "Kirschner and Gerhart invoke exploratory behavior as a means of avoiding what they view as an otherwise insurmountable difficulty: that novelty appears to require multiple, correlated changes from phenotype to function." *cough* bacterial flagellum *cough* "In Kirschner and Gerhart’s view, there are four aspects of gene regulation and development in animals that constrain the direction of heritable variation. These are the extensive conservation across metazoa of certain regulatory patterns; a modular pattern of organismal design; what the authors term “weak linkages” in gene regulation, caused by, in their view, regulatory interactions that do not specify outcomes; and nondeterministic outcomes of development." Erwin believes they are claiming that “natural selection needs some help.” Erwin say that natural selection is good by itself and doesn't require “random genetic variation that is biased toward viability, functional utility, and relevance to environmental conditions.” Erwin thinks they don’t understand what random means: "This is the first place where the authors get into trouble; for through much of the book they seem to fundamentally misunderstand how evolutionary biologists use the term “random.” By random mutation, evolutionary biologists mean random with respect to the adaptive needs of the organism, not, as the authors would have it in the early part of the book, completely random in the sense that many nonevolutionary biologists may think of the word “random.” One of Charles Darwin’s key insights was that the combination of undirected mutation and natural selection is a powerful positive force for evolutionary creativity (and not, as so many later biologists have suggested, merely a negative force). Evolutionary biologists have long understood that the nature of variation depends critically on what has already evolved. Indeed, there is a rich literature discussing how phylogeny, function, structure, and other features constrain evolutionary variation. Kirschner and Gerhart ignore this uncomfortable fact, dismissing constraint as “a minor effect, or trivial, for example, in explaining why mollusks (sic) and echinoderms were less able to evolve wings than vertebrates.“ They refer to variation as random alterations that can have little positive impact or that “lead to catastrophic failure.” This results in the appearance of some odd comments as, for example, when the authors claim that evolutionary biologists “do not commonly appreciate...” that “present-day organisms come from previous organisms.” Indeed."Gumpngreen

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

05:17 PM

5

05

17

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Out of curiosity, since when was the general public considered and authority on science?" Look, evolution is not a complex concept, and neither is ID. It is pretty clear that evolution educators are not presenting cogent arguments to the public, since the public is clearly not buying it. Public opinion can be a barometer (although a poor and statistically noisy one) of the strength of an argument, especially when that argument is presented unfettered by its staunchest advocates. In school, is ID generally presented in an unfettered manner by staunch ID advocates? No. Does ID get any governmental money? No. Darwinian evolution has both these advantages, yet ID is still winning. That means that ID arguments are persuasive. Just imagine what could happen with a level playing field. BTW, when I say public, I don't mean 'uneducated.' We could restrict the 'public' to anybody who has at least a bachelors degree in science, and we would still get similar poll results.anteater

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

01:39 PM

1

01

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The public is not an authority on science. But many in the civilian realm are capable of examining the data presented and making an objective decision. And therefore many are (understandably) skeptical of the notion that beings who seem wired to ponder and pursue the meaning of their very existance and who experience the depth of emotive consciousness on a daily basis, are really just the product of a mindless and purposeless accident.Bombadill

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

12:58 PM

12

12

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Out of curiosity, since when was the general public considered and authority on science?testerschoice

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

12:33 PM

12

12

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"I thought that the official position of the Discovery Institute was “no”?" I'm pretty sure they don't want the teaching of ID mandated by the government but at the same time they want it to be allowed if a school board so chooses.Gumpngreen

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

11:55 AM

11

11

55

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Go get'em Bill!Benjii

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

11:31 AM

11

11

31

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Failing to convince the public with the merits of their evolutionary narrative they are now using the courts to try to retain their exclusivity in public schools." Hehe, they must be grimacing with the thought of Alito right now (especially Barry Lynn).anteater

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

10:17 AM

10

10

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Obviously, science teachers who teach evolution are not doing their jobs correctly when > 75% of the masses find their arguments to be incredulous. " Obviously it's not the messengers but the message.MGD

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

09:33 AM

9

09

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Science, even though it has had exclusive control of public biology instruction for generations now, has failed to convince even 1 in 4 adults (according to polls - http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm#Evolution ) that evolution was not directed by an intelligence. Failing to convince the public with the merits of their evolutionary narrative they are now using the courts to try to retain their exclusivity in public schools. NeoDarwinian evolution is indeed a theory in crisis. But not for much longer. It'll be moving from critical care into the morgue soon now.DaveScot

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

09:33 AM

9

09

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I should add, that when Trefil was a UVA professor some years back, he help award a PhD to somone in Physics. That someone is now a tenured professor in physics at a secular school. That someone is a (gasp) IDist. ID beliefs didn't slow him down one bit in understanding science. Salvador PS Identity of that individual withheld for hopefully obvious reasons.scordova

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

08:52 AM

8

08

52

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Teaching ID does no harm to ones scientific understanding. Trefil is from GMU. 2 PhD's in biology graduated from his school are IDists (Timothy Standish and Gordon Wilson). One GMU Professor, Caroline Crocker taught at GMU (until of course the thought police got after her. FYI: Sisson was her attorney). Several GMU science students and PhD candidates are IDists. No harm done. Trefil attended our last IDEA meeting at GMU, with 90 students. No harm to the students. I was Trefil's student, and I have 3 science degrees from GMU. There is no harm to understand science if one learns about ID. The only harm one suffers believing ID is at the hands of the anti-IDists.scordova

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

07:26 AM

7

07

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Darn it!! I wish I could be there! Though I cannot be there in person, I will be there in prayer for sure. Have a great debate, Prof. Dembski!Sal Monella

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

07:20 AM

7

07

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Give them devastating poll results that show that > 75% of the public finds merit in some form of ID. If ID is right, it should be taught. If it is wrong, then the schools should try to clear the misconceptions regarding ID (thus it should be taught in this case as well). Obviously, science teachers who teach evolution are not doing their jobs correctly when > 75% of the masses find their arguments to be incredulous.anteater

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

07:19 AM

7

07

19

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Give em' the "what for". Jerk a knot in their materialistic tail.Bombadill

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

06:36 AM

6

06

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Oh yeah -- THERE IS NO DEBATE!johnnyb

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

04:35 AM

4

04

35

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I thought that the official position of the Discovery Institute was "no"?johnnyb

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

04:33 AM

4

04

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Will look forward to watching the live feed.Renard

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

04:10 AM

4

04

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Kick some chance-worshipping butt, Bill!DaveScot

November 1, 2005

November

11

Nov

1

01

2005

03:58 AM

3

03

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

A)So, where were they in Kansas? B) Will they end up bringing a knife to a gun fight? C)So much for the Dawkins stratagum.Jon Jackson

October 31, 2005

October

10

Oct

31

31

2005

08:16 PM

8

08

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link