Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Coyne compares Dembski to a Holocaust denier

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne twice emailed the academic who invited Dr. William Dembski to speak at a UC seminar on August 13, comparing Dr. Dembski to a Holocaust denier: “Would you invite a Holocaust denier to speak to a history department? For this is exactly what you are doing by inviting Dembski… And yes, seeing lies purveyed as truth, and creationists paraded out as if they were academically respectable researchers, is painful to me, and in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.”

The quotation above is a conflation of Jerry Coyne’s remarks in two separate emails, but as readers of Coyne’s latest post on the seminar can readily verify for themselves, it accurately conveys the tenor of Coyne’s thought.

In his email protesting UC’s inviting Dr. William Dembski to speak at its upcoming “Computations in Science” seminar, Coyne also stated that “the ‘no free lunch’ theorem he’s going to talk about has been debunked several times.” In an earlier post on the seminar, he provided references: “(see here, here, and here for the debunking).” Unfortunately, all of these critiques are over a decade old. And they’re not even the best critiques: Coyne neglected to cite the work of Felsenstein (see here and here) or Häggström, (see here) or Meester (see here). In his latest post, Coyne belatedly mentions the work of Felsenstein, but only because one of his regular readers alerted him to it. Nor does he mention the fact that most of these criticisms already have been addressed by Drs. William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II in their 2009 paper, Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information (in Bruce Gordon and William Dembski, editors, The Nature of Nature, Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2009 – see especially pages 5, 8, and 30-32 of the online version of the paper).

It gets worse. Apparently Professor Coyne doesn’t even know who authored the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, in the first place. In both his latest post and his earlier post, Coyne refers to “Dembski’s NFL theorem,” even though Dembski himself has never claimed to be the author: indeed, he explicitly credits William Macready and David Wolpert in the 2009 paper he co-authored with Robert Marks II: “In the 1990s, William Macready and David Wolpert proved several theorems to which they gave the descriptive tag ‘No Free Lunch’ or ‘NFL'” (p. 23, online version).

I might add that as Professor Coyne has no mathematical qualifications whatsoever, he is hardly qualified to express a professional opinion about the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, let alone declare it “debunked.”

In his first email to the academic who invited Dr. Dembski to speak at the University of Chicago seminar, Professor Coyne concluded on a scathing note:

It does not speak well of you or your seminar to invite a purveyor of creationism to speak to an academic audience at Chicago, and then characterize that creationism as an “intelligent opinion.” It is exactly as intelligent as homeopathy or the view that the Holocaust is a ruse. Your invitation to Dembski is an embarrassment to this University.

However, it appears that the academic who invited Dr. Dembski to speak at the seminar is a former Ph.D. supervisor of Dembski’s, who is himself Jewish, judging by a remark made by Coyne and by comments left on Coyne’s own post (see here, here and also here). If that is indeed the case, then I find it quite extraordinary that Coyne would write to a fellow Jew in terms like that.

Foot in mouth, anyone? Coyne should immediately apologize for his unprofessional behavior to Dr. William Dembski and to his former supervisor.

Comments
Two points: (1) I strongly disagree with Jerry Coyne on this. The "No Free Lunch" theorems grew out of AI research and the importance of search in AI. I do not see any problem with inviting Dembski to talk about his own use of the NFL theorems to a U. of C. AI group. And, given that Dembski is a Ph.D. graduate of U. of C., this seem particularly appropriate. Even if Dembski is misusing NFL (as I believe he is), this still makes sense. Whether or not Dembski is misusing NFL is a question for biology. The issue for AI is how he uses NFL, not whether that use is appropriate. So I see Coyne's complaints as out of line. (2) Can't we avoid the personal attacks? Do you really need that "sinks to a new low" in your title? I see your title as out of line.Neil Rickert
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
As to Coyne's remark:
“Would you invite a Holocaust denier to speak to a history department? For this is exactly what you are doing by inviting Dembski… And yes, seeing lies purveyed as truth, and creationists paraded out as if they were academically respectable researchers, is painful to me, and in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.”
This statement is interesting. The reason this is interesting is on several levels. First off, as historian Richard Weikart has meticulously noted in Hitler's Ethic, Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' reasoning provided the 'moral ethic' for the holocaust.
Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress Paperback – April 12, 2011 Excerpt: In this fascinating follow-up to From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating that the infamous dictator’s immorality flowed from a seemingly coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary theory to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race, and this ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics, euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination. This groundbreaking study provides truly fresh insights into one of the darkest chapters of the twentieth century as well as the field of evolutionary studies. http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ethic-Pursuit-Evolutionary-Progress/dp/0230112730
Of related note, David Klinghoffer, who himself has adopted the Jewish faith, recently asked Coyne this hypothetical question about the holocaust:
For Jerry Coyne a Hypothetical Choice: You May Knock on One and Only One Door - David Klinghoffer July 24, 2014 Excerpt: Now imagine you're Jerry Coyne and you've been transported back about seventy years into the past, to Poland under German occupation. You're on the run from the Nazis who don't care whether, as a Jew, you're a believer or an evangelizing atheist. You have the choice of two doors to knock on: one belonging to a Polish scientist, or even better an evolutionary scientist; the other to a priest or nun. Time is running out. You hear the scuff of pursuing boots behind you. What's your choice, Jerry? I encourage Coyne's readers to press for an answer. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/for_jerry_coyne088181.html
,,,Who would Coyne ask???bornagain77
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
It does not speak well of you or your seminar to invite a purveyor of creationism to speak to an academic audience at Chicago, and then characterize that creationism as an “intelligent opinion.” It is exactly as intelligent as homeopathy or the view that the Holocaust is a ruse. Your invitation to Dembski is an embarrassment to this University.
Wasn't the book on creationism written by a Jew? Here's UC's Medical School's requirement to act professionally.
Professional Relationships Establishing productive and respectful relationships with patients, faculty, residents, staff, and colleagues is an essential component of providing the best possible health care. To strive for professionalism and kindness in all of my daily encounters, I will: 1. Maintain appropriate relationships with patients, teachers, peers, residents and faculty. 2. Treat all members of the UCMC and Pritzker community, patients, and their families with respect, compassion, and dignity. 3. Be mindful to avoid intentionally embarrassing or deriding others. 4. Provide feedback to others (both colleagues and superiors) in a constructive manner, with the goal of helping them to improve. 5. Treat those who participate in my education (e.g. standardized patients) with dignity and respect. 6. Actively work to create an atmosphere in classrooms, clinical settings and in laboratories that is conducive to optimal, interactive learning. 7. Help and support my peers during difficult times in their academic, professional, and personal lives. 8. Attend to my own physical and emotional well-being.
So who is the real embarrassment to UC?awstar
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
It gets worse. Apparently Professor Coyne doesn’t even know who authored the ‘No Free Lunch’ theorem, in the first place.
You should be aware that there are quite a few NFL theorems out there. Calling one of them "Dembski's NFL theorem" doesn't mean to ignore the fact the Wolpert and Macready created the first one, but emphasizes the particular way Dembski uses NFL theorems. His formulations are different from those of Wolpert and Macready!DiEb
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
in similar ways that Holocaust denialists are painful to Jews like me.
I can only conclude that Holocaust denial must not be very painful to him because there is nothing that Mr Dembski teaches that causes reasonable people that much pain. That kind of rhetoric only cheapens the Holocaust and is disrespectful to the Jewish people. I also don't know what to make of the spectacle of the 'atheist Jew' except that it seems a misuse of the idea of Judiasm as if it is limited to an ethnicity alone.Silver Asiatic
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Coyne is headed, if not already there, in the same direction to that of Dawkins. Started out with some interesting, albeit flawed, arguments but his blind adherence to materialism, and his hate for all things God, has impaired his ability to think critically. His posts these days amount to nothing more than emotional rants, flawed arguments, poor reasoning and terrible science. One issue I have noticed with a number of these older scientists is that they never have anything new to offer / argue. In fact a lot of the arguments they put forward are old and thoroughly refuted. It is almost embarrassing listening to them, especially when we all realise they haven't kept up with the latest advancements and developments in related fields of study.humbled
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
Why would anyone be surprised here ? Most of the leadership within the Evolutionary religious crusade starts out with a career at the bottom and goes down from there. There is no other alternative but new lows from then on.DavidD
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
F/N: In reply to Dr Coyne's challenge and implied moral accusation [ --> BTW, how does he ground morality on his worldview, other than on might and manipulation make 'right' . . . ], I raise the warning words of Plato in The Laws Bk X, c 360 BC, on the issue of evolutionary materialist philosophy turned into a worldview and cultural agenda: ________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[ --> i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [[ --> In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ --> Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[ --> such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> _________ I put it to defenders of evolutionary materialism that this behaviour as headlined in the OP -- well-poisoning, slanderous censorship and bigotry -- constitutes a case in point of ruthless, domineering amoral factionalism that seeks to crush, abuse and manipulate, rather than live in a civil fashion in accord with duties of care to truth, reasonableness, fairness and innocent reputation. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT
Right so a biological system (me) passes his information to another biological system (my wife) and through a list of processes creates a brand new biological system (my son), this news system has both my wife and my information his unique system and all this is the result of pure dumb luck over 3 billion years of evolution? Oh ok Jerry whatever fancies your boat!Andre
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
VJT, we have long seen "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked," as an attitude or assertion. Moral equivalent of a holocaust denier is an outrage and indeed should be apologised for and retracted. This is also attempted outright censorship by well poisoning, an academic crime. Further to this, the namecalling, "Creationist," is also an attempt by a leading Darwinist apologist, to associate Creationism psychologically with Holocaust denial, which is an affront, especially as a very large proportion of those most deeply committed to the protection of the Jewish homeland, and the most reliable ideological allies of the Jewish people today are Bible believing Christians, most of whom would be classed as Creationists. Dr Coyne has stepped beyond the pale of civil conduct, and in any jurisdiction other than the US (with is deeply messed up libel and lander law), such remarks would be actionable -- for cause. KF PS: I would like to see Dr Coyne et al provide empirically grounded evidence that FSCO/I can and does originate per our observation, by blind chance and mechanical necessity. Unless and until that is done, we are fully entitled to point out the abundant, readily accessible only known source, design. And, to highlight the implications of the needle in haystack search across config spaces -- namely, a supertask to search within accessible atomic resources of solar system (500 bits) or observed cosmos (1,000 bits) -- leading to injection of active information by an intelligence as the most plausible explanation of the solution to such a challenge, is warranted by simple and accessible mathematics. For instance, 2^1,000 = 1.07*10^301, and the search limit of 10^80 atoms at 10^14 searches per second for 10^17 s gives 10^111 tries. If each atom of our observed cosmos were given 1,000 coins tossed and examined 10^14 times per second (a rate comparable to fast ionic reactions and generous for organic reactions) we would have 10^111 observed trials, a factor of 10^190 short. As FSCO/I requires correctly, specifically arranged and coupled components (WLOG these can be represented as strings, given what AutoCAD does etc), there is a tight constraint on possible configs to be functional and so we have the islands of function in a sea of non function that for instance we can observe for protein folding and functioning domains in amino acid space. With organic chemistry space beyond. A blind search for needles that are deeply isolated in a haystack of that order that is on such a relatively minute scope, is not credibly plausible as an answer. Intelligences compose designs based on insight and creative imagination, which is most likely not a Turing computational process -- i.e. we have an oracle machine. I fail to see how pointing out this or the like, can be civilly compared to holocaust denialism.kairosfocus
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
It must be obvious to anyone that, for Coyne and his friends, this is not not a matter of reasonable disagreement, but an apparent case of panic and existential struggle.Box
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT
Hardly unexpected to be honest, this is just what many evolutionists are like because of their strong underlying metaphysical beliefs. What's new ?Chimera
August 11, 2014
August
08
Aug
11
11
2014
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply