Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

They said it: contrasted introductions to (and definitions of) Intelligent Design at Wikipedia and New World Encyclopedia

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

News has just put up a post with the Meyer lecture on intelligent design (with a close focus on the pivotal case, origin of life, the root of Darwin’s tree of life analogy).  I responded here, in light of the history of ideas issues raised by the lecture as well as the question of why origin of life  is so pivotal tot he whole question at stake, but in so doing I had occasion to visit the Wikipedia article on Intelligent Design.

I saw that it had further mutated and evolved under intelligent direction into an even more strident tone than the last time I bothered to look or comment, and so I think it instructive to contrast two introductions to ID in online encyclopedias, Wiki and New World Encyclopedia (NWE) which has the inputs of Dr Jonathan Wells:

__________

Wiki: >> This article is about the form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute. For the philosophical “argument from design”, see Teleological argument. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation).
Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank. The Institute defines it as the proposition that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins” rather than “a religious-based idea”.[3] All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2]

Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. It puts forth a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.[5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4][6][7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[8][9][10][11] Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court’s Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of “Creation Science” in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state.[12][n 5][13] The first publication of the phrase “intelligent design” in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[14][15] From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the “intelligent design movement”.[16][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”, and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]>>

NWE: >> Intelligent design (ID) is the view that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection[1] Intelligent design cannot be inferred from complexity alone, since complex patterns often happen by chance. ID focuses on just those sorts of complex patterns that in human experience are produced by a mind that conceives and executes a plan. According to adherents, intelligent design can be detected in the natural laws and structure of the cosmos; it also can be detected in at least some features of living things.

Greater clarity on the topic may be gained from a discussion of what ID is not considered to be by its leading theorists. Intelligent design generally is not defined the same as creationism, with proponents maintaining that ID relies on scientific evidence rather than on Scripture or religious doctrines. ID makes no claims about biblical chronology, and technically a person does not have to believe in God to infer intelligent design in nature. As a theory, ID also does not specify the identity or nature of the designer, so it is not the same as natural theology, which reasons from nature to the existence and attributes of God. ID does not claim that all species of living things were created in their present forms, and it does not claim to provide a complete account of the history of the universe or of living things.

ID also is not considered by its theorists to be an “argument from ignorance”; that is, intelligent design is not to be inferred simply on the basis that the cause of something is unknown (any more than a person accused of willful intent can be convicted without evidence). According to various adherents, ID does not claim that design must be optimal; something may be intelligently designed even if it is flawed (as are many objects made by humans).

ID may be considered to consist only of the minimal assertion that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent agent. It conflicts with views claiming that there is no real design in the cosmos (e.g., materialistic philosophy) or in living things (e.g., Darwinian evolution) or that design, though real, is undetectable (e.g., some forms of theistic evolution). Because of such conflicts, ID has generated considerable controversy.>>

___________

This is an obvious case of whose report do you believe, why?

I would like to hear our thoughts on these two introductions, noting that in its current appeals for funding and support Wikipedia says it is the no. 5 most popularly visited web site in the world.

As a starter, I think the Wiki article is an obvious case of ideologically charged well-poisoning, as Nizkor summarises:

Poisoning the Well

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

  1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
  2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims.

. . . and that it so taints Wikipedia that something as loaded, unfair and biased as their article [just look at the drive-by ideologically loaded a priori materialism driven, question-begging redefinition of science in the teeth of easily accessible history and philosophy, compounded by the twisted-about propaganda tactic accusation that it is those who would appeal to more traditional and well accepted views who are trying to redefine science, cf.  my remarks on that problem here , here and here on as well as Johnson’s rebuke here] passes their vaunted “NPOV” — neutral point of view — mechanisms that I must view all Wikipedia articles with considerable caution.

So also, on topics where the known biases of the obviously dominant a priori evolutionary materialist secular humanist views are liable to distort what is presented and how it is presented, this popular online encyclopedia has essentially zero credibility.

I also think that should inform our decisions regarding support to that site in any way, shape or form.

Now, what do you think? Why? END

Comments
And its penumbra.kairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
We are not dealing with dialogue in good faith but ruthless, willfully deceptive, might and manipulation make ‘right’ power games.
The New Atheism.Mung
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Mung: BEFORE TA raised the promotional document, he must have seen the far more detailed, explicitly declared policy of DI, and he had opportunity to see that DI opposed the intent of the School Board in Dover. He cannot be acting innocently, and that is consistent with the exposed false accusations and snide insinuations he has put on the table and has never taken off or expressed regret for, much less set about amending his ways. Even the superficially mollifying words above are patently loaded, given the context. This is all of a piece with the wider agenda of willfully false narratives exemplified by Wiki in the teeth of every opportunity to do better. We are not dealing with dialogue in good faith but ruthless, willfully deceptive, might and manipulation make 'right' power games. We need to reckon seriously with that and the public at large should be warned. Indeed, that is why I took up this series. And, of course, ironically, it is a duty of good citizenship and of sound scholarship to identify, expose and warn against agendas that operate like that. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
timothya:
The Discovery Institute wrote the Wedge Document. Do they still stand by the objective?
About DiscoveryMung
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
TA: I will let the above stand, as there was a deletion accident. However, until you resolve the outstanding matter the situation remains, as you have improperly accused me and have asserted things that are one step removed from calling me a liar (where your remark on "what Intelligent Design proponents believe" -- given any number of willfully loaded atmosphere poisoning assertions and accusations about Creationism in cheap tuxedos and attempting to inject "religion" into science, in pursuit of a hidden right wing theocratic fundamentalist agenda etc -- just above is far less in context than it may appear to a naive onlooker; kindly cf Johnson here as already linked this morning). Those are very, very serious -- and unresolved -- matters. Good day. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
Here is (approximately) what I wrote: KF: I think you have done a wonderful job of explaining your views on Intelligent Design. If I am ever asked by an interested observer what Intelligent Design proponents believe, I will recommend that they read all of your posts concerning the Wikipedia article.timothya
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT
KF: There was nothing insincere about my comment that you deleted. I meant every single word exactly as I wrote them.timothya
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
F/N: TA has made a return to the thread in absence of addressing accusations and atmosphere poisoning remarks. I have removed his comment and annotated above. I cite what at this point appears to be insincere words here: (Oops, now lost.) KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
F/N: Johnson, here, lays the issues out in a 1999 early response to the wedge talking points. Let us clip and comment in light of the above. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
TA: You were asked to leave all threads I own. Your remark is removed to a response below, in the context of your remaining false accusations on the grounds that the remarks are highly likely to be insincere. You have poisoned the atmosphere, you now have to live with the consequences. KFtimothya
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
F/N: I have correctively marked up TA at 54, 55, 57 and 63, in light of assertions that border on outright accusing me of lying to or willfully misleading readers. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
I have continued the markup on Wiki's hatchet job on ID, here, with reference to the so-called wedge document. As usual, I will clip below and note that links (beyond the comment max-out) and image are in the original article. This also responds to the underlying issues with points raised by TA above. Given that through uncivil behaviour, he has forfeited the right of civil discussion, this seems a more reasonable strategy: ___________ Wiki’s F – - on ID, 7: The polarising false narrative about “Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design” >> The title of this post is taken from a 2004 book by Forrest and Gross, which further intensifies the earlier accusation that Intelligent Design is “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” Given the agenda-driven hatchet job on Intelligent Design presented as a neutral point of view objective survey of Intelligent Design (as has been critiqued here on at UD in recent days . . . ), it is unsurprising to see this accusation summed up in the lead of the Wikipedia article on the Wedge Strategy:
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”[2] The strategy also aims to affirm God’s reality.[3] Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4] The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.[5] Intelligent design is the religious[6] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted (see theistic science). Wedge strategy proponents are opposed to materialism,[7][8][9] naturalism,[8][10] and evolution,[11][12][13][14] and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.[15][16] The strategy was originally brought to the public’s attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.
First, an early fund-raising document for a movement hardly counts as a manifesto. However, that word already tells us that the assumption is that this is to be treated strictly a matter of fear-mongering politics and it hints that we are about to get a highly negative and tendentious review from determined and agenda-driven opponents. Sadly, that expectation is amply fulfilled. The Wiki article starts from the implicit presumption that science as a matter of established fact or indisputable consensus, is to be understood as confined to an a priori materialist, naturalistic circle. That this immediately censors the ability of science to freely seek an empirical evidence-led, accurate — i.e. truthful — understanding of our world in light of observation, experiment, reasonable inductive hypothesis, empirical testing and logic-driven discussion among the informed, is suppressed. Ironically, and highly instructively, a search I just now carried out at Wikipedia under the term “Billions and Billions of Demons” — the title of an infamous 1997 NYRB review article by Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin that presents a classic statement of the imposition of a priori evolutionary materialism on science as just outlined, comes up empty: there is no Wikipedia page under that title, and the only article hit is a highly adverse review of Young Earth Creationism. (A measure of how biased this article is, is the way in which it seems to cite the notorious Talk Origins archive as a trustworthy source.) That is telling, absolutely telling on Wikipedia’s agenda-driven hostile coverage of Intelligent Design, as we can directly and simply read in that notorious 1997 article — two years earlier than the Wedge fundraising proposal — as follows:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth [[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]. . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [NB: For a fuller citation with responses to common objections to this cite, cf here on.]
Now, in November 1997, Philip Johnson responded to this article in a First Things commentary, and it is thus an obvious context for a genuine understanding of the Wedge fundraising proposal he authored about two years later. But of this, we find nowhere the faintest trace in the wiki introduction as cited. Smoking guns, anyone? Yup, sadly so. Let me cite from the Johnson rebuttal to Lewontin, as a reminder on what is really at stake:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
In short, the root problem is plainly not the evidence as such, but the a priori imposition of ideological materialism on origins science.Worse, Lewontin and others apparently do not realise that the claim, assumption or inference that “science [[is] the only begetter of truth” is not a claim within science but instead a philosophical claim about how we get warranted, credibly true belief, i.e. knowledge. So, they have contradicted themselves: appealing to non-scientific, philosophical knowledge claims to try to deny the possibility of knowledge beyond science! Already, there is enough here to ground fair comment that the Wiki introduction and summary as cited is plainly reflective of a radical, evolutionary materialism driven secularist ideological agenda that, over fairly recent decades, has evidently seized control of institutional science and science education (cf. clips from the US National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association here). That would more than justify a balancing counter-strategy to challenge such an agenda. Especially, where the proposed counter-strategy is premised on doing scientific research that soundly grounds the hypothesis that there are empirically reliable, tested observable signs in the world of life and in the cosmos that point to design as a better explanation of cause, than the sort of a priori materialism influenced assumption or assertion that such must only be explained on the premise that they can only be explained scientifically as being caused through blind forces of chance and mechanical necessity. (Cf. here, here, here, here and here for relevant details at 101 level.) After all, ever since Plato in The Laws Bk X, it has been on record that we may contrast causes tracing to chance and necessity with those tracing to art. And, it is well known that there are techniques that can empirically study and detect signs of ART-ificial cause. Such as, we may explore through the causal analysis and design inference explanatory filter (here, adapted from Dembski): The per aspect explanatory filter that shows how design may be inferred on empirically tested, reliable sign So, the pretended contrast presented by Wiki and many advocates of a priori materialism in origins sciences, natural vs supernatural, is already premised on a strawman caricature of design thought. (NB: Wiki’s onward attempt in the article to trace the frame of design thought to John 1:1 on the Logos in action, fails to address the implications of the John’s empirically risky and testable assertion that Reason and Communication is the foundational principle of creation. Had it been seen instead that he world rests on chaos, this would have been held up as overturning the Christian conception of an orderly, reasonable world that is accessible to reasoned empirical study . . . a major contribution to the foundation of modern science. But instead, over the past three to four centuries we have seen that indeed the world is very orderly to the point where there has been talk about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in understanding the cosmos and its phenomena. As in, as Boyle and others would put it: “thinking God’s [rational, orderly creative, providential and sustaining] thoughts after him.” The very term, “laws of nature,” speaks to that view.) Sadly, such by now drearily familiar tactics by Wikipedia are unsurprising. However, to further understand the situation, we may consult the Discovery Institute’s response to the artificially stirred up scandal:
Darwinian activists and self-identified “secular humanists” claimed that the “Wedge Document” provided evidence of a great conspiracy by fundamentalists to establish theocracy in America and to impose religious orthodoxy upon the practice of science. One group claimed that the document supplied evidence of a frightening twenty-year master plan “to have religion control not only science, but also everyday life, laws, and education.” Barbara Forrest, a Louisiana professor active with a group called the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, similarly championed the document as proof positive of a sinister conspiracy to abolish civil liberties and unify church and state. Others have characterized it as an attack on science and an attempt “to replace the scientific method with belief in God.” . . . . In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (since named the Center for Science and Culture—CSC). Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scientists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and other materialistic theories of origins, and to support those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design; (2) to explore the larger philosophical or world-view implications of the scientific debate about design as well other philosophically-charged issues in modern science, and (3) to explore the cultural implications of competing philosophies of science and worldviews. With respect to (2) and (3), it has been a particular interest of the Center to counter the idea that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism. From the beginning the Center has focused its attention on scientific discoveries and theories that raise larger philosophical, world-view or cultural issues. For this reason, Center Fellows examined theories of biological and cosmological origins as well as theories in the social and cognitive sciences that raise questions about human nature. More recently, the Center has begun to address bioethical issues arising from developments in bio-medical technology. It is in the context of our concern about the world-view implications of certain scientific theories that our wedge strategy must be understood. Far from attacking science (as has been claimed), we are instead challenging scientific materialism—the simplistic philosophy or world-view that claims that all of reality can be reduced to, or derived from, matter and energy alone. We believe that this is a defense of sound science. With this in mind, we have supported research that challenges specific theories (such as neo-Darwinism, chemical evolutionary theory and various “many worlds” cosmologies) that provide support for the materialistic vision of a self-existent and self-organizing universe. We also have supported research that challenges theories (such as behaviorism, strong AI (artificial intelligence) and other physicalist conceptions of mind) that have portrayed humans as completely determined animals or machines. Naturally, many of our scholars and scientists are also working to develop competing hypotheses and theories, including theories of intelligent design and theories that defend the reality and irreducibility of human agency, responsibility and consciousness. As it happens, many of these fellows think that new discoveries in science either support, or are consonant with, a “broadly theistic” world-view. The “Wedge Document” makes the philosophical significance of our work—its challenge to scientific materialism and its favorable implications for theism—known to potential supporters. Even so, the case that our scientists have made against neo-Darwinism or for design is based on scientific evidence. Scientists of various (and no) religious persuasions have formulated such arguments (see below). Their work stands on its own. In any case, the “Wedge Document” articulates a strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through research, reasoned argument and open debate. As our not-so-secret secret document put it, “without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”
That puts a very different light on the document, and its context, especially given the wider context of the Lewontin article and the statements by the US NAS and NSTA. (Frankly, the above tactics remind me a lot of an old — and widely circulated — propaganda presentation by the USSR, which showed the US Naval, Air Force and Military deployments around the world in the 1980?s as a “proof” of American Imperialism. Smoking gun? Nope, as, when one saw also the deployment of Soviet assets and the pattern of Communist aggression, a very different conclusion was immediately obvious. In short, the Wiki hit piece on the Wedge document, is yet another instance of “he hit back first” rhetoric.) But, as design theory objector TimothyA informs us, the Wedge document calls for introducing ID in schools! Overblown. Under the list of five-year objectives, p. 16, we may read:
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory.
What does that brief reference mean? How is it to be understood? A clue lies in the words: “rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula.” As in, are there — and, circa 1999 were there – ideological imbalances in science education curricula in the US and elsewhere, that lead to indoctrination in a priori evolutionary materialism? Patently, yes. Would it be appropriate to rebalance such, in a way that is based on a more reasonable understanding of the true nature of and a historically informed and philosophically more balanced definition of science, its methods and their strengths and limitations? Obviously, yes. Similarly, would it be reasonable to hold that:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories(rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
Plainly, yes. And so, a reasonable and contextually informed reading of the Wedge document’s objective, would be to inform it based on the formal declaration of DI’s policy on science education: teach MORE, not less on evolution (including unanswered gaps and challenges thus a bit on the inherently provisional nature of science and the special issues of trying to find out what plausibly happened in a remote and unobserved actual past faced by origins science . . . ), and teach it in a balanced way informed by its strengths and limitations, also allowing students and teachers academic freedom to engage in reasonable debates on views, concerns and issues. Including, I would add, the “science and society” ethical concerns that have emerged across the past century and more. At worst, then, the reasonable reading would be that at first Mr Johnson may have wanted some inclusion of an exposition of design theory results in school science curricula, but from quite early days, this did not prevail in DI’s thought and policy decisions. In short, yet another unsurprising piece of snip, strawmannise and snipe. The core challenge, then is that we do evidently face an imposition of a priori materialism that seems to be able to warp not only science but becomes a platform for shaping society in ways that many people find questionable or even potentially dangerous. A fair estimation of the Wedge document should address this context and should engage the other side of the story. Wikipedia, again, fails in this duty of care to truth and fairness. Sad, but by now not unexpected. Let us hope that Wikipedia will wake up and make amends before it is too late. >> __________ Given the obvious prior imposition of evolutionary materialist secular humanism on the academy and education as well as other centres of power and influence, Wiki's "he hit back first" rhetoric is its own refutation. And, in a context where Wiki has also refused to fairly present the scientific grounding for design as a scientific paradigm, the problem of bias leading to willful false narrative is multiplied. KFkairosfocus
January 14, 2013
January
01
Jan
14
14
2013
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT
F/N: being busy just now, I will come back to this later. Suffice to say for now, that the willful, deliberate and insistent providing of a false narrative, bogeyman context and projection of improper and unwarranted motives by NCSE and others including Wikipedia -- regardless of the rest of the material facts -- does constitute the twisting into pretzels I remarked on above. Inparticular, it is a false narrative that the DI has pursued a policy of injecting Creationism in the classrom, it is a further atmosphere poisoning smear that design theory is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and it is demonstrably true that education has been subverted by materialist ideologues in the agenda of indoctrinating students into believing that science and philosophical materialism are inseparable. A particular5ly outrageous aspect of this has been willfully false, loaded, question-begging and censoring ideological redefinitions of science imposed on school systems. This has been shown above but it is quite evident that TA and others of like ilk are enmeshed in a web of the same materialistic indoctrination I have exposed in the case of Wikipedia. Enough is enough and this is the time to stand. KFkairosfocus
January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
NOTICE: I have already had to instruct TA, due to refusal to act in a reasonable and civil manner, to cease from posting in any blog threads of which I am owner. This is a final notice. I have now also responded to substantial concerns below. KF Kairosfocus posted this in relation to the Wedge Document: "In brief on the so-called wedge document:1 –> THIS IS A LEAKED FUNDRAISING DOCUMENT FROM 1999, WHICH WAS TWISTED BY OBJECTORS INTO PRETZELS AND MANUFACTURED INTO A FALSE ACCUSATORY NARRATIVE — SLANDER — ABOUT THEOCRATIC TAKEOVER OF AMERICAN CULTURE. (For corrections on the theocracy false accusation cf here in context in the UD weak argument correctives. )" Untrue. The Wedge Document is published in its entirety, and unchanged on the NCSE website. It is available to any interested reader to draw their own conclusions about the DI's motivations and intentions. "2 –> In that context, DI explains on its CSC that it exists to address the worldview and cultural agenda of evolutionary materialism driven secular humanism, which as we have seen above, is fully capable of big lie propaganda tactics to advance its cause and has succeeded in corrupting court rulings and popular encyclopedias alike." Irrelevant. Does not address the specific issue of introducing creationism into science classes. "3 –> That agenda is entirely consistent with supporting scientific investigations on origins science that correct the imposition of a priori materialism and deliver good empirically warranted results, in this case we can see that there is evidence that there are empirically broadly tested and found reliable signatures of design in the cosmos and the world of life alike, with a particular focus on the origin of life at cosmos level (fine tuning) and the suggested origin of life in a warm little pond or the like." Irrelevant tangential well-poisoning. The question is whether the DI advocated teaching intelligent design. "4 –> So, whatever sand objectors may want to kick up to blind and confuse the public — such as we saw above with Wiki — there is indeed an emerging scientific base anchored on good research that substantiates the design inference and relates it to cosmological origins and the origin of life." Irrelevant smoke-blowing unless you are saying that intelligent design is now mature enough to be taught in science classes. 5 –> A designed cosmos is most definitely associated with the increased credibility of the worldview that God is and is the ground of reality, though this is not a matter of imposing a priori theism then making deductions. The leading role of lifelong agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle in that, should make that very very patent save to the utterly closed minded." Unclear how this relates to the validity of intelligent design in the classroom, given the DI's repeated assertion that their theory makes no claims about the identity of the designer. "6 –> So strong is the design case that the leading philosophical atheist in the world, Antony Flew, became a deist." You know the history of this incident as well as I do. "7 –> Now, nothing so far is inconsistent with the policy of DI on education. And indeed, given the analysis on the balance of the academy and issues ans well as the situation in education it is entirely reasonable to say, objectively teach evolution and let students know the strengths and weaknesses including limitations on methods, instead of indoctrinating students." Tendentious unsupported bafflepoop. This amounts to saying that "Any godling should be allowed in science classes if so much as one evolution-denier can be found to claim allegience". "8 –> In short, we see yet more reason to see that in absence of a sound answer to the design inference and underlying evidence, we are meeting further snip and snipe, smear and scare tactics." Scare tactics? You must think that the average person is easily frightened. "TA, do better than this, a lot better! Final warning." Be still, my beating heart.timothya
January 12, 2013
January
01
Jan
12
12
2013
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
C; Kindly read above, here just above. (I am not speaking in any sense of venality and bribes, but of making decisions and rulings on ideology in the teeth of evident facts presented in patently valid documents and in the open courtroom . . . in case you don't understand, let me make my position clear, e.g. I hold that the infamous Roe v Wade decision of 1973 is a corrupt ruling, unduly influenced by ideological agendas that have cost 53 million unborn children their lives and have forced lower courts, legislatures, law enforcement agencies and the like to go along with this tidal wave of blood guilt that I assure you has not escaped the notice of the Just Judge of All. In short, ideology can corrupt, not just venality. And while the ill-informed ruling at Dover has not had the same magnitude of impact as this other ruling, it too is fatally flawed by ideology). KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 60
2 –> In that context, DI explains on its CSC that it exists to address the worldview and cultural agenda of evolutionary materialism driven secular humanism, which as we have seen above, is fully capable of big lie propaganda tactics to advance its cause and has succeeded in corrupting court rulings and popular encyclopedias alike.
Which court rulings do you say are corrupt? ThanksCLAVDIVS
January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
TA: A couple of days ago, you tried to publicly smear me in another thread here at UD. You refused to correct yourself, and the facts showed that you have not done your homework, but were so eager to smear that you spread dangerous half truths. Yes, there is such a thing as Gardasil, which addresses about 2/3 of the cases of HPV leading to cervical cancer. When cancer is in the stakes, leaving 1/3 of the problem on the board and communicating a dangerous false sense of security is not good enough. Now, you have moved to another thread to try to further smear, and in this case you have failed to do reasonable research and treat with fairness the DI policy on education. You have even failed to read the wedge document with any reasonable understanding or in light of the corrective response to the sort of false narrative polarising talking points you are spreading. I suggest you read here and here before you have anything else to say. (And of course, I will take up the Wedge document accusatory and false narrative tactic in due course.) After that, you owe an apology to those you have smeared. (And no, an attempted side track on Gardasil etc will not be tolerated, the only thing I want to hear from you on that is an apology. For good reason. (Onlookers, read then just keep scrolling down to see what is going on.) Failing that, I must ask you to remove yourself from this thread, and any thread I post at UD. You have already received a warning from the blog owner, I suggest you would do well to give it heed. In brief on the so-called wedge document: 1 --> THIS IS A LEAKED FUNDRAISING DOCUMENT FROM 1999, WHICH WAS TWISTED BY OBJECTORS INTO PRETZELS AND MANUFACTURED INTO A FALSE ACCUSATORY NARRATIVE -- SLANDER -- ABOUT THEOCRATIC TAKEOVER OF AMERICAN CULTURE. (For corrections on the theocracy false accusation cf here in context in the UD weak argument correctives. ) 2 --> In that context, DI explains on its CSC that it exists to address the worldview and cultural agenda of evolutionary materialism driven secular humanism, which as we have seen above, is fully capable of big lie propaganda tactics to advance its cause and has succeeded in corrupting court rulings and popular encyclopedias alike. 3 --> That agenda is entirely consistent with supporting scientific investigations on origins science that correct the imposition of a priori materialism and deliver good empirically warranted results, in this case we can see that there is evidence that there are empirically broadly tested and found reliable signatures of design in the cosmos and the world of life alike, with a particular focus on the origin of life at cosmos level (fine tuning) and the suggested origin of life in a warm little pond or the like. 4 --> So, whatever sand objectors may want to kick up to blind and confuse the public -- such as we saw above with Wiki -- there is indeed an emerging scientific base anchored on good research that substantiates the design inference and relates it to cosmological origins and the origin of life. 5 --> A designed cosmos is most definitely associated with the increased credibility of the worldview that God is and is the ground of reality, though this is not a matter of imposing a priori theism then making deductions. The leading role of lifelong agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle in that, should make that very very patent save to the utterly closed minded. 6 --> So strong is the design case that the leading philosophical atheist in the world, Antony Flew, became a deist. 7 --> Now, nothing so far is inconsistent with the policy of DI on education. And indeed, given the analysis on the balance of the academy and issues ans well as the situation in education it is entirely reasonable to say, objectively teach evolution and let students know the strengths and weaknesses including limitations on methods, instead of indoctrinating students. 8 --> In short, we see yet more reason to see that in absence of a sound answer to the design inference and underlying evidence, we are meeting further snip and snipe, smear and scare tactics. TA, do better than this, a lot better! Final warning. GEM of TKI PS: DJ, thanks for the kind words, will look at the links; on the way out the door now . . . later.kairosfocus
January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Concluding (and TA, we will get back to your usual misrepresentations in a moment): _______________ Wiki’s F – - on ID, 6: Is all of this focus on the Wiki ID article mere tilting at a windmill that is pointless and so should be ignored? >> One of the objections to the markup of the Wiki ID article is that this is tilting at a windmill. I disagree. It should already be plain that the Wiki article is representative of a standard set of talking points used to polarise the unwary against design theory, and to lead them to think there is nothing serious to see here, move along. But, as has been shown step by step over the past several days, this is based on a willfully constructed false narrative. One, that brings Wikipedia’s vaunted commitment to a neutral point of view and to objectivity into serious question. However, there is a second good reason to putting on record a markup of the article, as taking time to examine and correct it publicly provides a point of reference on what is wrong with the Wikipedia article, and with the on-the-ground (as opposed to on paper) policies of Wikipedia that allow such a hatchet job to stand for years. Also, it speaks to the wider issue of what is going wrong with our intellectual and media culture that allows such misrepresentations to stand, to spread and even seeks to build on them. A third issue needs to be borne in mind: influence. Let us look at some usage statistics I just collected from Wikipedia: Page views for the Wikipedia article on ID in the three months leading up to January 11, 2013 As you can see in the past 90 days almost 130,000 people went to Wikipedia to read about ID, many of them, doubtless, being unduly influenced or even seriously misled by that hatchet job. That’s an average of over 1,400 views per day. Just for record sake, it is important to provide an alternative for those 1,400 people. Per day. Of course, I have long recommended the New World Encyclopedia ID article, which is far better balanced and is not a hatchet job. (Of course, the mocking dismissal is that that article could just as well have been written by Discovery Institute. Guess what, if that is so, and the difference on accuracy and balance is so much in favour of NWE/DI, then that tells us a lot about who is really credible. Surprise — NOT — it is not: Wikipedia and its anonymous contributors, moderators and editors or policy administrators, Judge John E Jones, ACLU, NCSE, Ms Barbara Forrest and the Louisiana Humanists, etc.) So, now, where do we go from here? Can we successfully change Wikipedia at this time? I doubt it, the testimonies of the overwhelming wave of ideologues and biased moderation are too consistent. But, we can hold their feet to the fire, and over time bring home the point that this is not good enough not by a long shot. Let us remind them, from their own declared policy:
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it . . . . Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view . . .
Q: Wikipedia’s contributors, moderators and editors of the ID article, can you in good conscience in the face of evident facts, say that you have even come close to this standard in your ID article? A: On fair and well-merited comment, not by a long, long, looooong shot. Shame on you! Please, please, please, do better than that. A lot better than that. Or, we will have little choice but to see your encyclopedia as fatally compromised and agenda-driven on topics like this. With serious onward implications for the whole system’s integrity and trustworthiness, as it plainly cannot or will not police itself properly in light of evident facts and its own declared policy. Frankly, the tolerance of something like this speaks volumes on the state of academia, the education profession, our media culture and our wider popular culture. Also, in the meanwhile, we can seek out a fairer overview and stand up for it, exposing bias and the sort of saddening intellectual misconduct that we have had to wade through in recent days. We can be confident that in the end the truth will come out, even if it is unpopular and derided today. That, too, is a lesson of history. >> ________________ Wikipedia has a lot of work to do! KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Well said, kairosfocus, on both essays, including your Jan. 10 sequel. I have written on this subject myself here, http://dennisdjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/strawman-arguments-against-id-theory/. Please also visit our pro Intelligent Design discussion board on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/groups/140995135944096/?ref=ts&fref=ts. ThanksDennisJones
January 11, 2013
January
01
Jan
11
11
2013
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
Mung posted this: " That’s the “creationist” version, not the ID version." The Discovery Institute wrote the Wedge Document. Do they still stand by the objective? If so, then Kairosfocus is misleading his readers. I have now responded to any reasonable concerns below. The accusation of being "misleading" is not substantiated. KFtimothya
January 10, 2013
January
01
Jan
10
10
2013
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Can't you read a url? ncse.com/creationism/ That's the "creationist" version, not the ID version.Mung
January 10, 2013
January
01
Jan
10
10
2013
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus posted this: "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." This is bordering on untrue: see Point 6 under "Five Year Objectives" in the Wedge Document. That is or course bordering on accusing me of lying, not surprising given the problem on Gardasil already addressed. I have now taken time to respond to reasonable concerns those misled by talking points about the Wedge document may have, cf below. KFtimothya
January 10, 2013
January
01
Jan
10
10
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus posted this: "As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education." This is bordering on untrue: see Point 6 under "Five Year Objectives" in the Wedge Document at: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document _______ This of course borders on accusing me of lying. Not surprising from this objector, given his attempt to accuse me concerning HPV vaccinations that address 2/3 of the problem of a virus that seems responsible for triggering cervical cancer as though they solve the problem. I have addressed legitimate concerns that those who have been misled by the spin put on the Wedge document may have, below. By the time TA put this up, he should have realised that any evaluation of the DI policy on public education needs to reckon seriously with the context of a priori imposition of evolutionary materialism on science education and the formally declared policy that specifically rules out exposition of design theory in class rooms and gives reasons that appear both valid and sincere, proposing an alternative that would rebalance such education and allow room for freedom of thought in the classrooms if issues come up. Surely, the point should be education on and about science including equipping pupils for responsible and genuinely informed citizenship, not indoctrination in materialism wearing a lab coat. KFtimothya
January 10, 2013
January
01
Jan
10
10
2013
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
NOTE: I further continue the markup of the Wiki article on ID, here. Clipping (onward links are at the above just linked): ______________ Wiki’s F – - on ID, 5: Subtly distorting the truth on Discovery Institute’s policy on Education in public schools, multiplied by a failure of due disclosure on judge Jones’ Kitzmiller/ Dover ruling >> Last time, we showed how Wikipedia’s article on Intelligent Design flagrantly distorts the history of the origins of ID as a modern movement. Today, our focus is on a subtler distortion:
From the mid-1990s, intelligent design proponents were supported by the Discovery Institute, which, together with its Center for Science and Culture, planned and funded the “intelligent design movement”.[16][n 1] They advocated inclusion of intelligent design in public school biology curricula, leading to the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”, and that the school district’s promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[17]
This is cleverly and artfully worded, especially through the “They” I have highlighted. If the misleading statement above is challenged, it can always be pointed out by the ever so clever defenders of radical secularism that the reference to trying to insert ID into schools does not specifically specify the Discovery Institute — where, remember, the article begins by saying “Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank.” At this stage, on fair and merited comment, our context for parsing the above must be that — on evidence already laid out — the anonymous authors, editors and moderators of the wiki article have lost all credibility as fair minded people speaking from a neutral, objective point of view. So we can rest assured that he above words are quite intentional and calculated for manipulative impact. They are not merely a poor piece of writing, an accident by people meaning to be fair. This, folks, is also part of how false narrative propaganda — there is another and more familiar term, but it is a little brusque — works. Okay, time to get to our usual point by point steps of thought: 1 –> Basically, one who reads the above without knowing credible facts from elsewhere would not know that the Discovery Institute’s longstanding stated and emphatic policy on education runs essentially as follows:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
2 –> And, such a naive reader (this is ostensibly an Encyclopedia!) would not know that it has run more or less like this — to my personal observation — since the time of Seth Cooper, the time when the Dover Trial hit headlines seven years ago. 3 –> Nor, would one know that the DI specifically counselled the Dover School Board not to embark on the path of putting forth a statement to be read to students as a caution on origins science studies. 4 –> There is a second piece of speaking with willful disregard to the truth in hopes of profiting by what is said being accepted as essentially true. Namely, the citation of judge John E Jones III, from his ruling, as though what he said about ID were a neutral, objective, well-reasoned, factually accurate characterisation. 5 –> Of course, we have already seen reason to know that Judge Jones’ ruling is wrong about ID being essentially an evolved species of Creationism. As was already pointed out last time:
20 –> . . . it is appropriate to cite DI’s John West in a 2002 article, Intelligent Design and Creationism just aren’t the Same, on the attempt to equate design theory and Creationism: University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism: 1. “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement. Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as “intelligent design creationists.” Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term “intelligent design creationism” is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. “Intelligent design creationism” is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. “Intelligent design” is the proper neutral description of the theory. 2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3) 3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism. The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. 4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program. Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a “Faith Network” to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s “clergy outreach program” is “to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes” and to get church members to talk about “the theological implications of evolution.” (8) The NCSE’s “Faith Network Director” even claims that “Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God.” (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory. 5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism. Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: “Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it’s just creationism in disguise. If so it’s a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.” (10) 21 –> Given such a longstanding reply posted by DI on its site, in all fairness, Wikipedia has a duty to provide solid warrant for rejecting such and for justifying that to use the equation of Intelligent Design and Creationism in its introduction as a prime premise of the point its article makes, is very well warranted indeed. For Wiki is making an accusation — not of error — but one of outright, widespread large scale intellectual fraud.
6 –> But this is not the only or even the main problem with Judge Jones’ ruling and the section of the Wikipedia introduction to its ID article that cites it as though it were objective and authoritative. For, the naive Encyclopedia reader (think, smart 12 year old kid looking for basic, accurate info on a topic, here . . . ) would not have learned from the above, that the following was found to be the case about Judge Jones’ ruling after the fact, on analysis. As I reported in 2006:
A year after the Kitzmiller Decision in Dover, Pennsylvania, the Discovery Institute [DI] has just published a 34 p. article in which it shows, in devastating parallel columns, that Judge Jones’ discussion of the alleged unscientific status of the empirically based inference to design, was largely copied from an ACLU submission, factual errors, misrepresentations and all. DI summarises its findings thusly:
In December of 2005, critics of the theory of intelligent design (ID) hailed federal judge John E. Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which declared unconstitutional the reading of a statement about intelligent design in public school science classrooms in Dover, Pennsylvania. Since the decision was issued, Jones’ 139-page judicial opinion has been lavished with praise as a “masterful decision” based on careful and independent analysis of the evidence. However, a new analysis of the text of the Kitzmiller decision reveals that nearly all of Judge Jones’ lengthy examination of “whether ID is science” came not from his own efforts or analysis but from wording supplied by ACLU attorneys. In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” submitted to Judge Jones nearly a month before his ruling. Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. The finding that most of Judge Jones’ analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones’ examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design.
Now, a year ago, Judge Jones of Pennsylvania issued his “landmark” decision on the Dover School Board case, which was indeed hailed in much of the major international media as a death-blow to the Intelligent Design movement (which has of course not gone away!). In effect, he ruled unconstitutional the reading out to students in 9th Grade [roughly, 3rd form] Biology the following statement:
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.
That such a statement — in a time in which Darwinian Biology and the broader ideas of evolutionary materialism plainly continue to be scientifically, philosophically and culturally controversial — would be widely seen as an attempt to impose “religion” in the name of “science,” is itself a clue that something has gone very wrong indeed.
7 –> Notice, first: “Judge Jones’ discussion of the alleged unscientific status of the empirically based inference to design, was largely copied from an ACLU submission, factual errors, misrepresentations and all.” So, the proper source for the assertion is not Judge Jones, but the ACLU and most probably Ms Barbara Forrest’s assertions. Not exactly NPOV, and not exactly accurate citation of actual source. 8 –> It is worth going on, to note what I had to say — as one who has taught in the science classroom in a context where the sort of vapours that seem to seize control of thinking when such issues come up in the USA are not an issue — on the sort of situation where such a disclaimer would be thought needed by concerned parents and the like sitting on a district school board, and how it . . . the actual statement, whatever the underlying motives and attitudes of the School board as may be parsed and blown up in attempts to distract and dismiss . . . has been reacted to as an alleged improper imposition of religion on science education:
. . . it is immediately obvious on examining basic, easily accessible facts, that: a] The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution [NDT] is just that: theory, not fact. This means that insofar as it is science, it is an open-ended explanatory exercise, one that is subject to correction or replacement in light of further evidence and/or analysis, and one that seeks to summarise and make sense of a vast body of empirical data — in which effort there are indeed key, persistent explanatory gaps. b] Design Theory, in that light, is a re-emerging challenger as a scientific explanation, one that arguably better explains certain key features of, say the fossil record. (And, let us observe here, that ID should not be confused with, say Young Earth, specifically Biblically-oriented Creationism [YEC], which seeks to scientifically explain origins in a context that often — but not always — makes explicit reference to the Bible, regarded as an accurate record of origins. Nor, is it merely a critique of darwinian thought, but rather a working out of addressing the full range of root-explanations for phenomena: chance, necessity and agency, in light of the only actually known, empirically observed source of FSCI: intelligent agency. For example, design thought, as a movement, does not deny that significant macro-level evolution may well have happened across geological time [NB: YEC thinkers accept that micro-evolution can and does occur], but it is raising and addressing the really central, empirically based, scientific issue: how may we best explain where the functionally specific, complex information in life and in the biodiversity in the fossil record and current came from, given what we know about the observed source of such FSCI?) c] For instance, as Loennig points out in a recent peer-reviewed paper — a paper submitted to Judge Jones, BTW — on the well-known problem for the NDT that the fossil record is marked by sudden appearances and disappearances, starting from the Cambrian life explosion, and a resulting multitude of “missing links”: [On the hypothesis that] there are indeed many systems and/or correlated subsystems in biology, which have to be classified as irreducibly complex and that such systems are essentially involved in the formation of morphological characters of organisms, this would explain both, the regular abrupt appearance of new forms in the fossil record as well as their constancy over enormous periods of time . . . For, if “several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function” are necessary for biochemical and/or anatomical systems to exist as functioning systems at all (because “the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning”) such systems have to (1) originate in a non-gradual manner and (2) must remain constant as long as they are reproduced and exist [and also] (3) the equally abrupt disappearance of so many life forms in earth history . . . The reason why irreducibly complex systems would also behave in accord with point (3) is also nearly self-evident: if environmental conditions deteriorate so much for certain life forms (defined and specified by systems and/or subsystems of irreducible complexity), so that their very existence be in question, they could only adapt by integrating further correspondingly specified and useful parts into their overall organization, which prima facie could be an improbable process — or perish . . . . d] The call to an OPEN [but critically aware] mind in light of knowing the dominant theory and its gaps and that alternatives exist [note that ID was not to be expounded in the classroom!] is not a closing off of options but an opening of minds. (Notice how actual censorship is being praised when it serves the agenda of the secularist elites here.) e] Given the persistent absence of a credible, robust account of the origin of the functionally specific, complex information [FSCI] and associated tightly integrated information systems at the heart of the molecular technology of life, the origin of life is the first gap in the broader — and, BTW, arguably self-refuting — evolutionary materialist account of origins. Further to this, we must observe the force of the issue Loennig raises in his peer reviewed article on the challenge of viable macro-level spontaneous ["chance"] changes in DNA that express themselves embryologically early bring this gap issue not only to chemical evolution, but to the macro-evolution that NDT is supposed to explain, but does not. And such major explanatory gaps in the account of macro-evolution start with the Cambrian life explosion as Meyer noted in another peer-reviewed article. [Both of these were of course brought to Judge Jones' attention, and both were obviously ignored, even at he cost of putting out falsehoods and misrepresentations authored by the ACLU in his opinion. No prizes for guessing why.] f] So, while — as DI argues — ID is too pioneering to be a part of the High School level classroom exposition (as opposed to an issue that legitimately arises incidentally in debates and discussions), the cluster of persistent issues that NDT and wider evolutionary materialism cannot account for, definitely should be; on pain of turning the science classroom into an exercise in manipulative indoctrination. The ongoing censorship of this scientific, philosophical, and cultural controversy is therefore utterly telling.
9 –> Likewise, we need to ask some pretty pointed questions about the wider ruling:
A glance at major features of the ruling itself amply confirms the problem. For instance, observe how the Judge addresses a major concern in the case, revealing that he is indulging in improper activism in his attempt to decide by judicial fiat a matter that properly belongs to the philosophy of science: . . . the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us. [p. 63] (emphasis added) It is unsurprising to see that, in the 139 page ruling, Judge Jones held — among other things — that the inference to design was an inherently illegitimate attempt to impose the supernatural on science, and so falls afoul of the US Constitution’s First Amendment’s principle of separation of Church and state. He also held, as a key plank in his decision — even though an actual list of such papers was presented to him in a submission by the Discovery Institute [cf Appendix A4, p. 17, here] — that there was no peer-reviewed ID supporting scientific literature. Further to this, he refused to allow FTE, the publishers of the key book referenced in the case, Of Pandas and People, to intervene in the case to defend itself by participating in the trial, even though their work was being materially misrepresented — which clearly affected the ruling. Misrepresented? Yes, this book, in the actually published version [the one that is relevant to determining what the authors and publishers intended and what the impact of the book being in school libraries would likely be] explicitly states: This book has a single goal: to present data from six areas of science that bear on the central question of biological origins. We don’t propose to give final answers, nor to unveil The Truth. Our purpose, rather, is to help readers understand origins better, and to see why the data may be viewed in more than one way. (Of Pandas and People, 2nd ed. 1993, pg. viii) . . . . Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science. (pg. 126-127, emphasis added) In short — and exactly as the 1984 technical level book, The Mystery of Life’s Origins, the publication of which (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) is the actual historical beginning of the modern design movement [apart from in cosmology!] also argues — we may properly and scientifically infer to intelligence as a cause from its empirically observable traces that are not credibly the product of chance or natural regularities. But, of course, such an inference — just as its opposite, the philosophically based premise that science “must” only infer to chance and natural regularities on questions of origins — soon raises worldview issues. For, just as darwinian evolution is often used as a support for evolutionary materialism, a credible, empirically anchored scientific inference to design on the cases of: the origin of the molecular nanotechnology of life, that of the macro-level diversity of life and the origin of a finitely old, elegantly fine-tuned cosmos, plainly opens the philosophical and cultural doors to taking seriously what is “unacceptable” to many among the West’s intensely secularised intellectual elites: God as the likely/credible intelligent designer, thence credibly the foundation of morality, law, and justice. (So, let us pause: why is it that evolutionary materialist worldviews that go far beyond what is empirically and logically well-warranted are allowed to pass themselves off as “science,” thus can freely go into the classroom, but empirically and logically/ mathematically based serious challenges and alternatives to the claims of these worldviews that in fact appear in the peer-reviewed scientific and associated literature are excluded as “religion” [even when this is not at all objectively true]? Is this not blatant secularist indoctrination and censorship? Is not secular humanism, at minimum, a quasi-religion — one that now is effectively established by court fiat under the pretence that we are “separating church and state”? Should we not instead teach key critical thinking skills and expose students to the range of live options, allowing them to draw their own, objectively defensible conclusions for themselves in the context of honest classroom dialogue based on comparative difficulties? [NB: Here are my thoughts on science education, from a science teaching primer that I was once asked to develop. Perhaps, this lays out a few ideas on a positive way forward.])
10 –> On fair comment, something obviously went very wrong in judge Jones’ courtroom and in his study afterwards. (That he is said to have claimed that he would or did watch Inherit The Wind — which severely distorts the actual history of 1925 – 6 [cf. here on] — as apart of his preparation for the trial, is an indicator, but not a very encouraging one, on what this is.) 11 –> Plainly, Judge Jones is not a credible authority, and was not the primary source of the substance of his ruling. Wiki should never have allowed judge Jones’ ruling to cover up the underlying ACLU/NCSE materials that plainly served as the basis for his ruling. _____________ We have now come to the end of the section, and we find in it further but subtler false or misleading narratives of the situation and opinions that clearly trace to one side of a controversy being stated as though they were the last word. This is not good enough for an Encyclopedia, and it is not good enough for those who parrot much the same misinformation from this and other sources. Let us hope that Wiki’s contributors, editors, and moderators will have a serious rethink and will clean up the article. Failing such, they can only work to the discredit of Wikipedia as — despite public correction — harbouring misleading propagandistic misinformation and agenda driven talking points rather than genuinely balanced educational materials, and so being untrustworthy; leading to the linked betrayal of the many honest and diligent contributors to other articles elsewhere. >> _______________ Wikipedia needs to correct itself, pronto. KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2013
January
01
Jan
10
10
2013
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
F/N: It is worth clipping this from Sir Fred Hoyle, as an early and relevant use of the term, Intelligent design, in a context that raises the pivotal suggestion of information expressed in specified, functional, complex ways as a signature of design. He uses order, but would perhaps have been well advised to use Wicken's 1979 term, organization. Notice his plausibility based inference to best explanation: ____________ >> “Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” (Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[, Jan 12th 1982]), pg. 28, Fred Hoyle, Enslow Publishers, 1982). >> ____________ HT Bilbo, Telic Thoughts.kairosfocus
January 8, 2013
January
01
Jan
8
08
2013
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
kf, and as Paul Harvey would have said,,, "I now you know the rest of the story, Good Day!" PAUL HARVEY PROPHECY: "If I Were the Devil" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_zF7tuWMnsbornagain77
January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
BA, actually negative temperatures are "above" infinite conventional temperature! That is, the negativity depends on a population inversion, as with a laser. Where, per the Boltzmann type distribution, temperature depends on having fewer atoms in higher energy levels, thence, negative temperatures. Here -- as there is no progressivist, secularist evolutionary materialist politics involved -- Wiki does a good job:
In physics, certain systems can achieve negative temperature; that is, their thermodynamic temperature can be expressed as a negative quantity on the Kelvin scale . . . . That a system at negative temperature is hotter than any system at positive temperature is paradoxical if absolute temperature is interpreted as an average internal energy of the system. The paradox is resolved by understanding temperature through its more rigorous definition as the tradeoff between energy and entropy, with the reciprocal of the temperature, thermodynamic beta, as the more fundamental quantity. Systems with a positive temperature will increase in entropy as one adds energy to the system. Systems with a negative temperature will decrease in entropy as one adds energy to the system. Most familiar systems cannot achieve negative temperatures, because adding energy always increases their entropy. The possibility of decreasing in entropy with increasing energy requires the system to "saturate" in entropy, with the number of high energy states being small. These kinds of systems, bounded by a maximum amount of energy, are generally forbidden classically. Thus, negative temperature is a strictly quantum phenomenon . . . . This phenomenon can also be observed in many lasing systems, wherein a large fraction of the system's atoms (for chemical and gas lasers) or electrons (in semiconductor lasers) are in excited states. This is referred to as a population inversion . . . For the system to have a ground state, the trace to converge, and the density operator to be generally meaningful, beta H must be positive semidefinite. So if h nu [LessThan] mu, and H is negative semidefinite, then beta [~ 1/T] must itself be negative, implying a negative temperature.
KF PS: The preview shows the Gk letters but they go to q-signs on posting and the letters are lost. Oh well!kairosfocus
January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT
OT: A Temperature Below Absolute Zero: Jan. 4, 2013 Excerpt: In their experiment, the scientists first cool around a hundred thousand atoms in a vacuum chamber to a positive temperature of a few billionths of a Kelvin and capture them in optical traps made of laser beams. The surrounding ultrahigh vacuum guarantees that the atoms are perfectly thermally insulated from the environment. The laser beams create a so-called optical lattice, in which the atoms are arranged regularly at lattice sites. In this lattice, the atoms can still move from site to site via the tunnel effect, yet their kinetic energy has an upper limit and therefore possesses the required upper energy limit. Temperature, however, relates not only to kinetic energy, but to the total energy of the particles, which in this case includes interaction and potential energy. The system of the Munich and Garching researchers also sets a limit to both of these. The physicists then take the atoms to this upper boundary of the total energy – thus realising a negative temperature, at minus a few billionths of a kelvin. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130104143516.htmbornagain77
January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
BREAKING; Wiki caught in a hoax, takes down article. But we won't hold our breaths that the more serious hoax of hatchet job articles on ID will be taken down any time soon. BA 77 clips Klinghoffer on Wiki's problem with ID:
Wikipedia’s articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia’s volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight. You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again. ,,, on Wikipedia, “fact” is established by the party with the free time that’s required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
HT: BA, BA77. (Actually, I suspect we are looking at more than that, some of this stuff reeks of astroturfing to create the impression of a mass base crowd source, when we are looking at ideological agendas. Coordinators of such campaigns do mobilise the otherwise unemployed and probably give out stipends to at least the main activists. Where also college students and high schoolers while subsidised can hardly be deemed unemployed. So, I suspect that it is naive to think it is just mere happenstance at work. This is a post Alinsky neo-marxist "community organiser," "occupy-X" world. ) KFkairosfocus
January 6, 2013
January
01
Jan
6
06
2013
01:18 AM
1
01
18
AM
PDT
Next installment on Wiki's F - - on ID, here: ________ Clipping (onward links and figure are in the just linked) >>Wiki’s F – - on ID, 4: Correcting a widely circulated propagandistic false history of the origins of intelligent design as a scientific school of thought Just now, I see where an objector to ID was saying that I a am tilting at windmills to take time to take apart the introduction to Wikipedia’s anti-ID hit piece presented as a NPOV review of ID from significant and credible sources. It bears remembering, then, that by Wiki’s admission in a promotional and fund raising appeal, they are the number 5 most popular site in the world. Other evaluations vary, but it is quite plain that Wiki is arguably the most commonly resorted to popular reference and education site in the world. That is a lot of reach and influence, so they have an even more intense duty of care to truth, accuracy, credibility and fairness than we all do. That is why – and I now continue the markup begun here and which was last looked at here — it is necessary for us to put the following next increment under the microscope:
Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court’s [--> 1987 -- notice how the date is not given . . . ] Edwards v. Aguillard decision, which barred the teaching of “Creation Science” in public schools on the grounds of breaching the separation of church and state.[12][n 5][13] The first publication of the phrase “intelligent design” in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People, a 1989 textbook intended for high-school biology classes.[14][15]
Given the sad track record so far, it should come as no surprise to see that this is so opposite to the truth that it begins to verge on the infamous Big Lie propaganda technique. I note, that most of those involved at Wikipedia doubtless believe they are speaking the truth as much as they know it, in light of apparently credible sources. Unfortunately, that is actually a part of the problem and of the way that such techniques of brazen deception work: by leading people to sincerely believe themselves right and even righteously indignant, when they are in fact — on the rest of the story they have either never heard of or have been led to dismiss out of hand — manifestly in the wrong. For others, however, the matter is far more serious, as they are in a position where they have a stringent duty of care to truth and fairness before speaking in such strong terms as we see above. To fail or willfully neglect such duties of care on a serious matter, is a sobering matter indeed. These are strong things to have to say, but I believe such are unfortunately well warranted, and intend to show why I do so believe (having investigated the facts over about a decade), below. Now, too, this — sadly — is one time that Hitler is a genuine and highly relevant expert, so courtesy the Jewish Virtual Library, here is his summary on the Big Lie (and notice, in context he cleverly twists about the matter and throws it on the to-be-scapegoated Jews when in fact it is he who is about to embark on a campaign of lies so big that ordinary uninformed people cannot believe they are false):
. . . in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. [Mein Kampf, cf here]
Thus has spoken one of the most “successful” liars of all time — one who by lies brought his adoptive state to ruin and caused the death of sixty millions and the devastation of a continent. Mass delusion is unfortunately possible, and there is horrific track record on its effects. Sadly, it is my duty to report that in the clip above, I have grounds to believe that Wikipedia verges on just such a resort to spreading of colossal lies by an apparently credible — and certainly highly influential [# 5 most popular web site by their own statement] source citing other apparently credible sources (while targetting a designated scapegoat group), and thus poisoning the whole context of discussion. As I have taken pains to highlight above, I suspect that most of those involved are simply parrotting what they have found in or been taught by sources they trust, but at this level that is not good enough. For, no source is better than his or her facts, reasoning and associated assumptions, which should be audited. Especially, in contexts that are obviously apt to be controversial. I trust the onlooker will pardon a bit of a break in transmission to point the onlooker to some tutorial level sources on basic critical thinking and de-spinning the media, education and similar places or means of influence: Despinning the media, etc Critical Thinking 101 (in 15 minutes) A reference site on rhetoric The problem of Selective Hyperskepticism Building a well-founded worldview 101 A basic introduction to Design Theory (the context for the problems) Now, let us turn to some corrective steps of thought for the clip above: 1 –> We must first distinguish the concept of the design inference from the terminology that is used to express that pivotal inference and the implications of it.The issue is ideas and evidence that evaluates or even warrants such, not terminology. 2 –> So, whether or not the first modern usage of the term Intelligent Design is in the popular level work, Pandas and People, it is highly material to note that the technical foundation of design theory (which is only popularly discussed in P & P) traces first to the emerging pattern of cosmological research since the 1950?s that led to the recognition of evident fine tuning of the cosmos, and the emergence across that same period of recognition of the facts of molecular biology that show us a world of astonishing nanotechnology and the discovery of digital information storage and algorithmic processing to make proteins. 3–> Illustrating protein assembly using mRNA codes and tRNA carriers for successive coded for AA’s, in the ribosome, from a diagram found elsewhere in Wikipedia (and also used at IOSE and here at UD): [Figure at the linked post] Step by step protein synthesis in action, in the ribosome, based on the sequence of codes in the mRNA control tape (Courtesy, Wikipedia and LadyofHats) 4 –> Those sorts of facts led to the following remarks — and yes, I am deliberately pointing to the longstanding clips in the IOSE, which ultimately come from the pioneer ID technical work of 1984, The Mystery of Life’s Origin [TMLO . . . the link is to a whole book download], by Thaxton et al — that were made by noted origin of life researchers, Orgel and Wicken across the 1970?s:
ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.] WICKEN, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
5 –> Already, we see here the issue that information-rich complex organisation for functional specificity as is pervasive in the world of life, especially at cellular level, is very different from either order or randomness, and cries out for adequate and distinct empirically grounded causal explanation. This, from major voices in the world of origin of life research utterly unconnected to the about to emerge design theory movement. 6 –> This is multiplied by remarks we have already had occasion to cite from the well known Astrophysicist (and life-long agnostic), the late Sir Fred Hoyle, holder of a Nobel equivalent prize for his Astronomy:
The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix . . . . From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect [--> as in, a Cosmos-building super intellect] has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.]
7 –> We already see a cosmologically linked design inference that is tied to the issue of origin of life, by 1981 – 82, coming from a Nobel Equivalent prize holder who is speaking at Caltech, and is publishing his remarks. He also said that physics itself is contrived towards fostering key materials that are of course at the heart of Carbon Chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life on terrestrial planets such as Sol III, aka Earth:
I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]
8 –> TMLO, published in 1984, was shaped by those influences and trends, and so we can first read in the conclusion to Chapter 7 (note discussion here):
While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The “evolution” from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors. It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Both types of molecules are much more energy and information rich than the biomonomers from which they form. Can one reasonably predict their occurrence given the necessary biomonomers and an energy source? Has this been verified experimentally? These questions will be considered . . . [Bold emphasis added. Cf summary in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, "Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life," in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (June 1988): 72-83, pardon the poor quality of the scan. NB:as the journal's online issues will show, this is not necessarily a "friendly audience."]
9 –> In Ch 8, Thaxton et al continue — and recall this is about 1982 – 84:
We can give a thermodynamic account of how life’s metabolic motor works. The origin of the metabolic motor (DNA, enzymes, etc.) itself, however, is more difficult to explain thermodynamically, since a mechanism of coupling the energy flow to the organizing work is unknown for prebiological systems. Nicolis and Prigogine summarize the problem in this way: Needless to say, these simple remarks cannot suffice to solve the problem of biological order. One would like not only to establish that the second law (dSi 0) is compatible with a decrease in overall entropy (dS < 0), but also to indicate the mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of coherent states.2 Without a doubt, the atoms and molecules which comprise living cells individually obey the laws of chemistry and physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. The enigma is the origin of so unlikely an organization of these atoms and molecules. The electronic computer provides a striking analogy to the living cell. Each component in a computer obeys the laws of electronics and mechanics. The key to the computer’s marvel lies, however, in the highly unlikely organization of the parts which harness the laws of electronics and mechanics. In the computer, this organization was specially arranged by the designers and builders and continues to operate (with occasional frustrating lapses) through the periodic maintenance of service engineers. Living systems have even greater organization. The problem then, that molecular biologists and theoretical physicists are addressing, is how the organization of living systems could have arisen spontaneously. Prigogine et al.,have noted: All these features bring the scientist a wealth of new problems. In the first place, one has systems that have evolved spontaneously to extremely organized and complex forms. Coherent behavior is really the characteristic feature of biological systems.3 In this chapter we will consider only the problem of the origin of living systems . . . . Only recently has it been appreciated that the distinguishing feature of living systems is complexity rather than order.4 This distinction has come from the observation that the essential ingredients for a replicating system—enzymes and nucleic acids—are all information-bearing molecules. In contrast, consider crystals. They are very orderly, spatially periodic arrangements of atoms (or molecules) but they carry very little information. Nylon is another example of an orderly, periodic polymer (a polyamide) which carries little information. Nucleic acids and protein are aperiodic polymers, and this aperiodicity is what makes them able to carry much more information. By definition then, a periodic structure has order. An aperiodic structure has complexity. In terms of information, periodic polymers (like nylon) and crystals are analogous to a book in which the same sentence is repeated throughout. The arrangement of “letters” in the book is highly ordered, but the book contains little information since the information presented—the single word or sentence—is highly redundant. It should be noted that aperiodic polypeptides or polynucleotides do not necessarily represent meaningful information or biologically useful functions. A random arrangement of letters in a book is aperiodic but contains little if any useful information since it is devoid of meaning. Three sets of letter arrangements show nicely the difference between order and complexity in relation to information: 1. An ordered (periodic) and therefore specified arrangement: THE END THE END THE END THE END Example: Nylon, or a crystal. [NOTE: Here we use "THE END" even though there is no reason to suspect that nylon or a crystal would carry even this much information. Our point, of course, is that even if they did, the bit of information would be drowned in a sea of redundancy]. 2. A complex (aperiodic) unspecified arrangement: AGDCBFE GBCAFED ACEDFBG Example: Random polymers (polypeptides). 3. A complex (aperiodic) specified arrangement: THIS SEQUENCE OF LETTERS CONTAINS A MESSAGE! Example: DNA, protein. Yockey7 and Wickens5 develop the same distinction, that “order” is a statistical concept referring to regularity such as could might characterize a series of digits in a number, or the ions of an inorganic crystal. On the other hand, “organization” refers to physical systems and the specific set of spatio-temporal and functional relationships among their parts. Yockey and Wickens note that informational macromolecules have a low degree of order but a high degree of specified complexity. In short, the redundant order of crystals cannot give rise to specified complexity of the kind or magnitude found in biological organization; attempts to relate the two have little future.
9 –> Later on, these pioneers go on to examine DNA and the various scenarios for proto- life, and then appended a philosophical epilogue in which they look at the issues that the OOL question poses, raising the question of explanation on an intelligent creator within or beyond the cosmos in light of remarks by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. They refuse to draw a conclusion on that issue of within/beyond the cosmos beyond the point that such a creator is plausible, as the evidence does not lead them to be able to do so on a scientific footing. 10 –> Ever since, that has in fact been the basic view of scientific thinkers in the design paradigm: empirical evidence of reliable signs that point to design as causal process for origin of life or of major body plan features of interest is not equal to evidence that leads to the identity of any given designer, much less that identifies such a designer as “supernatural.” (Of course, we would note that the cosmological design issue is of a different magnitude and operates on different evidence, where of necessity the cause of our cosmos — which, since it is credibly contingent as it seems to have had a beginning some 13.7 BYA, needs to be causally explained – must be beyond it.) 11 –> Subsequent to that, we have had a second major wave of scientific design thinkers who joined the early wave of Thaxton, Bradley Olsen and the like, such as Dembski, Minnich and Behe, in the early to mid 1990?s. These brought a sharper focus on quantification of complex specified information and the inferential filter, and they also brought o bear the concept of irreducible complexity (already discussed in this series of responses). By 2007, Durston et al had a published metric for actual biological cases of functionally specific complex information, bearing on fifteen protein families. 12 –> However, that carries us beyond the critical window of time, 1973 – 1984, by which time the foundational work TMLO was published. 13 –> At about that time too Denton published (in 1986) his Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, which contains the following key extract:
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter [[so each atom in it would be “the size of a tennis ball”] and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines . . . . We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices used for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . . However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equaled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours . . . . Unlike our own pseudo-automated assembly plants, where external controls are being continually applied, the cell’s manufacturing capability is entirely self-regulated . . . .[[Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler, 1986, pp. 327 – 331. This work is a classic that is still well worth reading. Emphases added. (NB: The 2009 work by Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute, Signature in the Cell, brings this classic argument up to date. The main thesis of the book is that: "The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order [[better: functional organisation] to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.” Given the sharp response that has provoked, the onward e-book responses to attempted rebuttals, Signature of Controversy, would also be excellent, but sobering and sometimes saddening, reading.) ]
14 –> You will notice, I am emphasising names and dates, which may reek uncomfortably of the notorious emphasis of history on names, dates and places. But there is method to the madness. Causes must be present at least as soon as the effects they are associated with, so you do not have a cause AFTER the effect. 15 –> So, let us notice, we have the emergence of the pioneering phase of design theory across the 1970?s into the 1980?s, building on emerging results in various fields since the 1950?s. 16 –> That basic, easily discoverable cluster of historical facts immediately overturns the notion presented by Wikipedia’s anonymous contributors, that the cause of the Intelligent Design school of thought in science was an attempt to rename “Creationism” in order to somehow evade 1987 US Supreme Court rulings that excluded teaching of Creationism in schools in the USA. 17 –> The timing is simply wrong, and the trends in basic scientific research leading to conundrums linked to cosmological origins and origin of life studies are far too plain for that to be so. 18 –> And, given that we are dealing with events that date to 1973 – 1984 – 6 as pivotal to the emergence of ID as a scientific view, I have to find that the omission of the 1987 date of the US Supreme Court decision is highly misleading and mischievous in effect, especially as the Wikipedia introduction nowhere lays out the timeline from 1973 – 1986 and the sort of key markers as I have just done. 19 –> Also, given the terms and concepts already in play from 1973 – 1986, the identification of the term Intelligent Design as being first used in 1989 in P& P is further highly misleading in that context. Indeed, it becomes a half truth that is enabling of a wider, willfully misleading falsehood. 20 –> In that context it is appropriate to cite DI’s John West in a 2002 article, Intelligent Design and Creationism just aren’t the Same, on the attempt to equate design theory and Creationism:
University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism: 1. “Intelligent Design Creationism” is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement. Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as “intelligent design creationists.” Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term “intelligent design creationism” is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. “Intelligent design creationism” is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. “Intelligent design” is the proper neutral description of the theory. 2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3) 3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism. The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s “refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God” and noted that “philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group.” Indeed, according to AIG, “many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation….” (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing “the Biblical method,” concluding that “Design is not enough!” (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism. 4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program. Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin “made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a “Faith Network” to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s “clergy outreach program” is “to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes” and to get church members to talk about “the theological implications of evolution.” (8) The NCSE’s “Faith Network Director” even claims that “Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God.” (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory. 5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism. Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: “Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it’s just creationism in disguise. If so it’s a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us.” (10)
21 –> Given such a longstanding reply posted by DI on its site, in all fairness, Wikipedia has a duty to provide solid warrant for rejecting such and for justifying that to use the equation of Intelligent Design and Creationism in its introduction as a prime premise of the point its article makes, is very well warranted indeed. For Wiki is making an accusation — not of error — but one of outright, widespread large scale intellectual fraud. _________ On fair comment, Wiki has nowhere managed to substantiate such a claim to the point where it could be so freely used in its introduction to its ID article. Where also, the evidence just presented is sufficient to show that such a claim is utterly unlikely to be true. So, Wikipedia’s contributors collectively, moderators and leadership, here, have been involved in something that indeed verges on outright propaganda tactics. A very serious correction, retraction and permanently, prominently posted apology are well warranted. >> __________ At this point, sadly, Wikipedia has now descended into making up/ irresponsibly transmitting a false and tendentious history as though it were the well-warranted truth. Sad. KFkairosfocus
January 5, 2013
January
01
Jan
5
05
2013
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply