Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steven Pinker — Let’s show some proper deference to Darwin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

Creationism piece no way to honor Darwin’s birthday
July 20, 2009

Letter to BOSTON GLOBE

SHAME ON you for publishing two creationist op-eds in two years from the Discovery Institute, a well-funded propaganda factory that aims to sow confusion about evolution. Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise.

The judge referred to the theory’s “breathtaking inanity,’’ which is a fine description of Stephen Meyer’s July 15 op-ed “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design.’’ Well, yes, Thomas Jefferson died 33 years before Darwin published “The Origin of Species.’’ And Meyer’s idea that the DNA code implies a code maker is just a rehash of the ancient “argument from design’’ – that an eye implies an eye maker, a heart implies a heart maker, and so on. Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago.

In a year in which other serious publications are celebrating the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of “Origin,’’ the Globe sees fit to resurrect his long-buried opposition.

The advantage that traditional newspapers have over the Internet competition is quality control. If the Globe repeatedly gives its imprimatur to the latest nonsense from an anti-science lobbying organization, what’s the point of going to it for reliable, intelligent commentary?

Steven Pinker
Cambridge

Comments
ScottAndrews
What nature is that? How can you say they are rare
The fact that we are not aware of any alien life form indiciates life is rare. If it was not, we'd be aware of them. That or your designer ran out of ideas.
, as opposed to nonexistent,
Here we are right now. My example.
when you cannot supply an example?
I just did. Us.
We can start with whatever evidence led to your conclusion that DNA occurred naturally.
No. That would require me typing in millions of words of research. You can read that for yourself. I can however provide links and book names if you require. Of more interest is the evidence that led to your conclusion that DNA was designed. There is much, much less of that. So let's start with that. Or perhaps you'd prefer to give me a example of a thin with 499 bits of FSCI? As you prefer.Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
The point is these events are by their nature rare.
What nature is that? How can you say they are rare, as opposed to nonexistent, when you cannot supply an example? Either you can answer Upright Biped's question or you can't.
What sort of evidence would you accept for such a demonstration?
We can start with whatever evidence led to your conclusion that DNA occurred naturally.ScottAndrews
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
The point is these events are by their nature rare. There may be life in the universe using very different mechanisms and materials. Do you agree or disagree? To point to one of these rare events and say "that event must have been designed as it is so rare" misses the point. If we meet aliens, each of which claim their origin was natural as far as they can tell, what then ScottAndrews?
Your logic conveniently relieves you of the burden of demonstrating that DNA occurred naturally.
What sort of evidence would you accept for such a demonstration?
. And you have admitted that you can think of no other example.
Horse DNA.
You may use DNA as an example, provided you demonstrate that it occurred naturally.
Just so. And Upright may use DNA as an example when he deomonstrates that it was designed. Don't you agree?
Otherwise you appear to have no response.
Not at all. While I while away the time here in my quiet little junkshop I have all the time in the world to compose any response you might like.Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
Mr. Charrington, Your logic conveniently relieves you of the burden of demonstrating that DNA occurred naturally. And you have admitted that you can think of no other example. You may use DNA as an example, provided you demonstrate that it occurred naturally. Otherwise you appear to have no response.ScottAndrews
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Upright, Is that your argument? Show me a naturally occurring X where I have already ruled out X itself because I claim that it is designed, and therefore X cannot be used as an example of X. That is a little bit silly. Tell me, what type of example are you expecting to get back? That such a thing exists in dust? In waterfalls? The only place your example could exist is the place you have already ruled out. Is this the best you've got?Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed
Please post any observable examples you have. Thanks.
DNAMr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
dhx, There is something I am wanting to study further, perhaps you can help. Do you have any empirical examples of “naturally-occurring complex algorithms where such analogous phenomena as a “stop” codon exist.” Please post any observable examples you have. Thanks.Upright BiPed
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Joseph,
Yet a peer-reviewed paper tells us that is beyond the reach of non-telic processes
I can't imagine this is the first time this has been pointed out to you but here goes anyway. Will you stop using that "argument" now? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2644970
The square root on the second factor is an important insight from our calculation and is the main difference between our theory and Behe's naive calculations, which assume that the two mutations must occur almost simultaneously.
and also
In Behe (2009), the accompanying Letter to the Editors in this issue, Michael Behe writes (here and in what follows italicized quotes are from his letter), “… their model is incomplete on its own terms because it does not take into account the probability of one of the nine matching nucleotides in the region that is envisioned to become the new transcription-factor-binding site mutating to an incorrect nucleotide before the 10th mismatched codon mutates to the correct one.” This conclusion is simply wrong since it assumes that there is only one individual in the population with the first mutation
Mr Charrington
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Joseph, In science, a debate is not how one resolves a controversy. Instead one goes about forming hypothesis', performing experiments, and collecting data. As to your second point .. . huh?!?90DegreeAngel
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Joseph:
With gene dupication the new gene requires a new binding site just to be able to be activated.
Unless, of course, the binding site is copied as well. Or if the gene gets spliced in near an already existing binding site.Hoki
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
hdx, With gene dupication the new gene requires a new binding site just to be able to be activated. Yet a peer-reviewed paper tells us that is beyond the reach of non-telic processes: See Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian EvolutionJoseph
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
hdx:
Every month in articles in magazine such as Science and Nature data is given in support of evolution.
1- "Evolution" isn't being debated 2- There aren't any articles that demonstrate that non-telic processes can account for the diversity of life. IOW hdx you are so confused all you can do is flail away.Joseph
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
4 sparc 07/20/2009 9:19 pm Dr. Dembki, Kairosfocus introduced the term FCSI (aka FSCI) on this forum. I may have missed it but do you or the other EIL members use this term. If so could you please share your thoughts on it?
13 kairosfocus 07/21/2009 6:24 am Pardon a cross-thread remark: Re Sparc @4 above: The underlying objection in the cross-threaded question has been (again)answered in the eye into materialism thread at 200. Indeed, the Weak Argument Correctives 26 - 29, especially 28, have long had an adequate answer. (But objectors to the inference from reliable signs such as FSCI — and the broader CSI — to the signified, empirically warranted intelligent causes thereof, have been desperate to rhetorically blunt its force without dealing with the issue squarely on the merits.)
Don't you agree that a simple "yes" by Dr. Dembski would help you?sparc
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Well, we have been inundated with Nature articles. Some of which have the full copy. Maybe some of our anti ID people here will want to peruse them to see which ones support a naturalistic view of evolution and which mechanism of naturalism was supported. And speculate on why they have not been brought up before. Remember homologies and micro evolution are no support for macro evolution. Then it was said: "Lets look at real data. Scientists know DNA mutates (ID has no problem). Scientists know genes can be duplicated (ID has no problem). Scientists know chromosomes can have large alterations (ID has no problem). Scientists know that an organism's phenotype has an effect on survival (ID has no problem). Scientists know that in more ancient rocks you will find more ancient organisms (ID has no problem). Scientists make predictions about this all the time (ID has no problem but might want to comment on the specific predictions)." But in none of this is there evidence of information origin or information building or the origin of species or how they could arose. Oh I understand that genomic duplication can mutate away but how much has this to do with the information in the genome. I suspect some but not a whole lot. And by the way that is the type of data that Meyer was referring to in his Boston Globe article, genomic data. Did you really think he would present data in such an op-ed? Do you really think the editors of the Boston Globe would have printed it? There was an admission by the Grants that the finches on the Galapagos were essentially the same species and that it would take about 23 million years for these species to develop into different species after isolation. I am sorry but 23 million years for some birds to part company is not enough of a mechanism for all the changes that had to arise at various times that are far more differentiated or complicated than a new finch species. We will look at the various Nature articles to see what was shown and what was speculated but why don't you get a jump start on this and present the strongest arguments in these articles since most of us do not have the full text or the time to pursue each one. Ball in your court.jerry
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
He was referring to the information in the genome or are you also in the camp that there is no information in the genome?
No he didn't. He cleary didn't use any data. Of course if this is what ID considers data, I can see how nothing is published. Meyer just complained that DNA is complex like a computer programs so it must have been designed. Lets look at real data. Scientists know DNA mutates. Scientists know genes can be duplicated. Scientists know chromosomes can have large alterations. Scientists know that an orgranisms phenotype has an affect on survival. Scientists know that in more ancient rocks you will find more ancient organisms. Scientists make predictions about this all the time. You can bend and complain about the data and make all these philosopical arguments you want...but the data is not in your court.hdx
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7231/full/nature07891.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/full/nature07985.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7192/full/nature06936.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/full/nature05329.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature07974.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7051/full/nature03863.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/full/nature716.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v381/n6577/pdf/381019a0.pdfhdx
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
I just read the Meyer article and is an argument from data mainly. Yes, he uses Jefferson citing the obvious but he then reverts to the argument from DNA and its unique form of complexity in the form of information. Of course we will get our information deniers here but are they any different from the flat earthers denying the obvious. "There is no data in Meyer’s argument." He was referring to the information in the genome or are you also in the camp that there is no information in the genome?jerry
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
"I don’t see anything for intelligent design." I have read a lot of Nature and Science articles and have not seen anything for macro evolution either. If you have anything, present it. We have been asking for years and all we get are tidbits that are inconclusive.jerry
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
"Shame on you" indeed! Imagine a newspaper allowing a plurality of opinion to be heard! O, the audacity!allanius
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
This is so hysterical. Materialists ideologues fiegn enlightenment by demanding that emperical observation and rational deduction lead the attack on any worldview that does not accord with their own - but they cannot produce it for their own worldview. In fact, the empricism and rationality goes the other direction entirely.
Every month in articles in magazine such as Science and Nature data is given in support of evolution. I don't see anything for intelligent design.hdx
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
*rereads Meyer's article*
Meyer’s is an argument from data.
ROFL There is no data in Meyer's argument.hdx
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
This is so hysterical. Materialists ideologues fiegn enlightenment by demanding that emperical observation and rational deduction lead the attack on any worldview that does not accord with their own - but they cannot produce it for their own worldview. In fact, the empricism and rationality goes the other direction entirely. How hysterical.Upright BiPed
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Except that Meyer's argument isn't an argument from authority. Meyer's is an argument from data. Ya see if people like Pinker don't like the design inference then all they have to do is to actually start supporting their position! Yet it is obvious that they cannot even muster a testable hypothesis pertaining to non-telic processes.Joseph
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
This is so hysterical. Stephen Meyers writes an article in which the whole premise is an argument from authority with a few philosophical argument thrown in, and when Pinker responds with an argument from authority (using the vast majority of current scientists vs one single non-scientist from over 200 years ago) and with some philosophical arguments, the whole ID community here is up an arms. How hysterical.hdx
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Anyone who believes evolutionary psychology is science but who has to invoke the courts to support his view is either a scoundrel or an idiot. Anyone who believes the courts decide what is or isn't science needs to have his head examined. Preferably by something other than an evolutionary psychologist. Even a rock will do better. Pinker is a disgruntled atheist full of angst and all his theories are loaded with his own metaphysical assumptions and tons of speculation. Indeed, that's what EP is - a ton of gratuitous speculation wrapped up in a lab coat to get it through the presses.Borne
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
DEMOLISHED! DEMOLISHED!” at the top of his lungs doesn’t exactly amount to any sort of compelling argument. So, Dr. Pinker, should you happen to read this blog, then I have a challenge for you
yeah let him list the mutations, in order, that led to the eye. he cannot, but takes it on faith that the eye evolved, because evolution HAS to be true...the alternative *gasp* God is UNTHINKABLE...tsmith
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise.
I can't help but wonder what Pinker et.al. would have had to say had Jones ruled that ID was science. Would they accept citations of the ruling as de facto evidence that ID is indeed science or would they pound their lecturns shouting that courts and judges do NOT get to decide what is or is not science? Pinker continues to fume
And Meyer’s idea that the DNA code implies a code maker is just a rehash of the ancient “argument from design’’ - that an eye implies an eye maker, a heart implies a heart maker, and so on. Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago.
Whenever words like "domlished" or "eviscerated" or "destroyed" are invoked to describe the state of ID arguments, its a sure sign that the critic has nothing of substance to offer. Pinker waving vigorously waving his hands as he shouts "DEMOLISHED! DEMOLISHED!" at the top of his lungs doesn't exactly amount to any sort of compelling argument. So, Dr. Pinker, should you happen to read this blog, then I have a challenge for you: tell us how you know scientifically that the properties of Nature are such that any apparent design we observe in biological systems can not be actual design, even in principle? I'm not the least bit interested in your philosophical, metaphysical or theological opinion on the subject...only the science. Show me the scientific research studies that confirm this hypothesis and cite the relevant peer reviewed scientific journals where these studies were reported, because I would love to read them. I would also be most interested to hear how these finding might be falsified. If you don't have such scientific studies (hint to Dr. Pinker: you do NOT), then why on earth should anyone give a whit about your philosophical opinion on the subject? Do you really believe that your academic authority includes the right to dictate which philosophical worldview is acceptable for science and which isn't? If you truly believe that, Dr. Pinker, by all means tell me from whence this authority of yours comes and who or what validates that authority such that the rest of us must yield to it. In other words, Dr. Pinker, instead of writing snitty letters to the editor of a newspaper, why don't you try laying out an actual argument to support your case using actual science, logic and reasoning. For an example of how to do that, I refer you to the original article by Dr. Stephen Meyer which you so vehemntly attack.DonaldM
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
"Why does everyone, Pinker included, mention the Dover decision? Do federal courts now decide what is science and what is not?" The Dover judge was asked to decide whether or not intelligent design is a religious idea. The evidence was overwhelming. Intelligent design is most definitely a religious idea, and therefore does not belong in a public school, and definitely not a science classroom. Biology teachers can't be expected to stick a religious idea into a science lesson. Public school teachers can't be expected to violate the Establishment Clause. The Dover judge made the only possible correct decision. Anyone who respects our constitution would agree.sane person
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Pardon a cross-thread remark: Re Sparc @4 above: The underlying objection in the cross-threaded question has been (again)answered in the eye into materialism thread at 200. Indeed, the Weak Argument Correctives 26 - 29, especially 28, have long had an adequate answer. (But objectors to the inference from reliable signs such as FSCI -- and the broader CSI -- to the signified, empirically warranted intelligent causes thereof, have been desperate to rhetorically blunt its force without dealing with the issue squarely on the merits.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 21, 2009
July
07
Jul
21
21
2009
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Sorry to interupt the insult contest, but... While we all complain about each other, have we not all noticed something inarguable? Every one of our appeals is just that; an appeal to something else. Whether it is to authority or evidence, we must appeal to something outside ourselves to support and sell our position. All of the above (authority, evidence, hypothesis) have their place and all have their limitations. The one thing that does not change no matter the philosophy we are arguing from, is our method by which to argue. That method is the ultimate appeal. All other appeals are based upon its validity. What is the method? (imagine cheap suspense inducing crescendos). We all accept it, and we cannot deny it, because to even deny it, we must employ it. Without it, no science can exist because testing itself assumes the method's axiomatic authority. It is the law of non-contradiction. All models of reality (philosophies) are built upon it. Science is no exception. It is an institution founded on the bedrock of reason. No, reason alone will not do. But we cannot prove that empirically you see. We believe that reason must be combined with empirical data, because it is a further application of the method using the natural world as a neutral medium between us. The point is this... The judge ruled that ID is a religion. But what is a religion? A religion is a philosophy. It is a model of reality. Some invoke deities, and others do not. The ultimate test (based again on the same law we have already accepted) is which philosophy most coheres with the evidence. Are we so forgetful that we must continually return to such dry basics? I don't have a problem with someone appealing to authority. What interests me is that the judge is in error because he propagates a false dichotomy between science and religion. It is a popular myth. And it is made by declaration, and not argued as is everything else. When it is argued, as with Hume and Kant it is immediately self refuting and defeated by the very law it neccessarily employs. Yes, I know many of you will not agree with that. Mine is harldy a new argument. But so what. Disageement is not an argument. Its a hand wave. Most of you have never fully grasped the simplicity of what I say. It is so obvious that it is dry and boring. This is the issue: What is science? What is objective knowledge? When answering, there is no use invoking the empirical world, for to do so means you must assume a logic system by which to judge and measure it. And as you all know (or should know) that system cannot itself be proven legitimate empirically. Empiricism and rationalism rely upon each other to be validated. But reason always precedes observation else we observe a stone as a stone observes us. Science is the law of non-contradiction. 'Natural science' is the law of non-contradiction applied to the natural world.Lock
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
10:25 PM
10
10
25
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply