ID award recipient not named for own protection …

_{Denyse O'Leary
July 25, 2008

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I notice that at Overwhelming Evidence, Sam Chen announces that a student sympathetic to intelligent design has received the Cassey Luskin Graduate Award, but

The recipient of the 2008 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient….

It’s interesting to reflect on that in view of the many legacy media know-nothings panning the Expelled documentary, insisting that there is no evidence that anyone has suffered discrimination on account of sympathy for design as a feature of nature.

And they wonder why the blogosphere is whacking the heck out of them …

On most of the issues I monitor, the fact is that, agree or disagree, I can no longer get reliable and timely information from these sources. They seem to have hunkered into their bunker, repeating their well-worn beliefs to people who don’t really care.

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

Creating belief systems more essential to our humanity than making tools?

Neuroscience: How complex is your brain? More than you can easily imagine!

Hunting, herding, hiding, and hustling – that explains our social relationships?

Psychiatrist Jeff Schwartz speaks on what drugs can do for you – and what you and your mind must do for yourself

Comments

-----“ID needs to be turned into a fruitful scientific paradigm if it is to replace Darwinism. It will only be able to do this when it’s advocates are able to show why ID is the superior road for the progress of science to take.” To show design in nature from a scientific perspective is, in itself, a noble accomplishment, and I don’t think that such progress should be trivialized on the grounds that it has not yet produced a medical miracle or some amazing technical breakthrough. Indeed, it is this same openness to purposeful function in nature that will, in time, yield practical scientific benefits. One thing sure, ID does not have a tough act to follow. The theory of evolution has not produced one single benefit for mankind in 150 years. More to the point, we need to understand where these breakthroughs come from and why they happen. Freedom of speech produces innovation and not the other way around. Darwinists want to reverse the natural order of things by granting ID scientists their freedom of speech AFTER they produce something of practical value. They insist that Dembski, Behe, Meyer and associates should have to EARN the right to express themselves. Obviously, that is not the way the world works, and it explains why freedom-hating Darwinists seldom produce anything of value. They can only survive as parasites on the freedom-loving innovators outside the community. The formal name for this phenomenon is “tenure,” and its function is to protect the parasite from the producer.StephenB_{July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

There is a big controversy over string theory — a lot of physicists are doing research on it but a lot of other physicists consider it to be unscientific. There is a big controversy over whether thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is a factor in autism. Larry, will taking a strong stand on whatever side of these issues jeopardize anyone's tenure track? Or will an establishment journal refuse to publish a paper solely due to the position one holds on these issues? I think that's the point being made.tribune7_{July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Correction: "...what he does at* DI everyday." I’m removing your feed from my newsreader since you censor postings. There is no free discourse. Gee, wonder how your comment showed up in the first place, and why Bob'Oh still has posting privileges if that was really true. That’s why you censor readers postings, because you believe you always have the best answer. No, postings are censored so people who are sympathetic of ID can have an oasis for free discussion that isn't polluted by random trolls. I suppose I could extrapolate that to the ID movement not being able to stand up to critical examination. No you can't since it was false to begin with, and even if it were true cannot automatically apply to every last person in the ID movement in such a different context. Hmmm, a theory and a movement that refuses not to stand up to scrutiny. Does that sound familiar to anyone?F2XL_{July 27, 2008
July
07
Jul
27
27
2008
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

DaveScot said (#13) -- There’s no big controversy over any other bits of “science” other than mud to man evolution and global warming. Why? There is a big controversy over string theory -- a lot of physicists are doing research on it but a lot of other physicists consider it to be unscientific. There is a big controversy over whether thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is a factor in autism. There must be a lot of little scientific controversies that are not in the news.Larry Fafarman_{July 26, 2008
July
07
Jul
26
26
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

gstrock If ID won't stand up to critical examination then why all the fuss about it? There's no big controversy over any other bits of "science" other than mud to man evolution and global warming. Why?DaveScot_{July 26, 2008
July
07
Jul
26
26
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Reminds me of the practice of popes appointing cardinals "in pectore" -- "in the breast." The cardinals are often known only to the pope -- often the appointees themselves do not know that they have been appointed. Two questions -- (1) Is this intended to be an anonymous award? (2) Is the award for graduates or for graduate students?Larry Fafarman_{July 26, 2008
July
07
Jul
26
26
2008
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

I'm removing your feed from my newsreader since you censor postings. There is no free discourse. I think this really hit home in the post where you described yourself as the only male in a biology class and asserted that you always had the best answer. That's why you censor readers postings, because you believe you always have the best answer. I suppose I could extrapolate that to the ID movement not being able to stand up to critical examination. Adios, greg strockbinegstrock_{July 26, 2008
July
07
Jul
26
26
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

A big public-relations problem for ID theory in the scientific community is that leading theorists have associated themselves with the ID movement. No s*%#, you think a new set of ideas that attempt to explain what we observe around us is just going to magically gain acceptance without a need for a movement??? I'm so sure Darwin's ideas did not require his followers to gather together and spread the good news to various people in order for his ideas to gain acceptance and notoriety in the form of a movement (yes I'm comparing him to a cult leader, sue me). There is nothing wrong with working openly to show that the ground rules should be changed to permit explanations of nature that are presently excluded. Looks like someone has fallen for the "ID is not science" BS we hear all the time, and also seems to think that they already know ahead of time what science is, and what ID is. Because I'm so damn sick of hearing this, let me go over the top reasons I hear when people say ID is not science: 1.It's not testable falsifiable- You're joking right? A theory which everyone claims to have not only tested but completely falsified isn't even falsifiable in the first place? What's that I hear: "But Mr. you can't study the intelligence so it's not science..." True... except it's the EFFECTS of intelligence we care about. We can come across an arrowhead and draw conclusions completely independent of knowing the tribe, seeing them make it, knowing what "mechanisms" they used, etc. Sure as hell seems testable to me. 2.It makes no predictions- Just look up it's definition, and you'll get one big-ass prediction there folks. 3.ID is not based on natural law- Cool afterthought, but unless science is supposed to be one great big philosophical showcase, this is pointless. And besides, ID is focused on observable features in the natural world, so I don't see any interference there. 4.Design Detection is not currently a part of science- To make this statement true, we need to act now and cut all funding for SETI, and that would only be a start if one wanted this claim to be true... and even if design were not a part of science today, this does not mean it never will be. 5.ID is starting off with a conclusion, which is not what science does- Oh really? Seems like every major theory from Newton's theory of gravity to Darwin's theory itself breaks this exact same rule... 6.But it's not instantly repeatable in the lab- Neither is the evolution of life over the past 3.85 billion years, so Darwin was just as guilty. 7.ID does no scientific research- Wonder what the hell is going on here then: http://www.biologicinstitute.org/ 8.ID is not science because it ain't published in peer-review journals- Ok, we apologize for expressing views that may upset people of certain ideologies who get to decide what they like and don't like in their precious periodicals, but we sure would like a reason for WHY they refuse to publish anything we come up with and submit. Besides: "We won't publish this." "But why?" "Because it's not science." "How is it not science?" "Because it has no peer-review papers." Hmmmmmm, I smell a loop-hole. 9. There are no practical applications of ID- A practical application right off the bat is expanding our knowledge of the natural world (would list more, but don't have the patience). If that isn't an application then we may as well throw out research on the big bang. Besides, what exactly have the benefits been from assuming we all rose up from a primordial sludge and became (through chance and necessity) the diversity of life we see today? Seems like every "application" of evolution I know of involves knowledge of adaptations people have been aware of for centuries. 10. ID has supernatural/philosophical implications- Great, let's save money from researching the big bang since that realm of thought is guilty of the same thing. Oh, and if Dawkins thinks evolution has such strong implications against god, and if Barbara Forrest thinks evolution is a key aspect of her philosophical thinking, then yes, we must remove Darwin's ideas from the classroom. So there yah go folks. The top ten reasons I hear on why ID is not science. Of course another claim is that it's religious. 11.Wedge document- That's been addressed before: http://www.discovery.org/a/2101 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_3.html 12.Pandas Drafts- See the above point and the following links: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/09/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_4.html https://www.discovery.org/f/649/ If all ID theorists were like "Mike Gene," there would be no reason for them to hide their identities. Ummmmm, I can think of several reasons why someone would want to keep anonymous even if they don't instantaneously declare ID as science... Even Mike Gene wouldn't risk their day job by even SUGGESTING that ID might have some truth to it. It is ironic that Casey Luskin, as a paid political activist in the intelligent design movement, has done a great deal to make it unsafe for grad students to express openly their interest in ID theory. It is even more ironic that you would accuse one of the most tenacious defenders for ID of that; simply because he's doing everything it takes to make it possible for ID advocates to have the ammunition to support their views. I can't express in words how often I cite articles by him on Evolution News in the middle of a flamewar. If things unfold in certain ways, I just might feel compelled to do what he does and DI everyday. I don't live too far from Seattle, maybe that might become a possibility.F2XL_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

I was planning to express outrage at the use of the name "Atticus Finch" under the circumstances. Good observation, there is some Irony to the usage of that name while blaming victims of their own persecution. (I believe I've had to read To Kill a Mocking Bird 3 times back in high school). Oh, and when I said there were no applications for Darwin's theory (in the sense of macro-evolutionary changes), I was wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj2LJ8LrmrwF2XL_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Frost 122585 wrote: "ID needs to be turned into a fruitful scientific paradigm if it is to replace Darwinism. It will only be able to do this when it’s advocates are able to show why ID is the superior road for the progress of science to take." Perhaps. Further examples from ongoing and future research will certainly increase the weight of the evidence. But I think it is already clear that thinking about biology in a design-centric way is far superior to supposing most biological systems are the result of a Darwinian RM+NS mechanism. While the latter has scarcely produced any fruit and has, in many cases, stifled scientific inquiry, the design approach is already widely used in the science community. It seems the primary thing remaining is to get folks to acknowledge that they are using a design-centric approach in applied biology and stop parroting fanciful just-so stories that prop up the materialist creation myth.Eric Anderson_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

So ID's relation to religion is warrented in a certain sense.. but as Kurt Godel once remarked the problems between the relationships between science and religion are for the most part the result of us "not suitably enhancing our understandings."Frost122585_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

The problem with Atticus' point is that "religion" like "evolution" has multiple meanings. Some of what ID is about can be understood as "religious" just because it requires faith in the accuracy of abstract concepts like SC and design- but then again ethics is the same way. To me the abstract concepts like SC and design are the issues that are really in question here. What do they mean, and where do they begin and end? ID has the problem that "everything" could be designed- yet for ID to be a science there needs to be criteria that are objectively warranted. Where design and evolution begin and end is very difficult to tell. Yet to me ID has not been disproved nor is the other side even in a strong position to show it superfluous. Therefore, as long as ID remains on the table it is a competing scientific alternative explanation for origins. The real question is where will ID take us? ID needs to be turned into a fruitful scientific paradigm if it is to replace Darwinism. It will only be able to do this when it's advocates are able to show why ID is the superior road for the progress of science to take. Until then the dialectic remains- the heated controversy exists.Frost122585_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

My reputation for being kind is entirely undeserved! I was planning to express outrage at the use of the name "Atticus Finch" under the circumstances. But I needed to be sure it was not this individual's actual name. Sometimes a person has a name that people think they made up to get attention - even though they were not seeking any attention.O'Leary_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

I have no idea who "Atticus Finch" is and if he/she wants to attack me publicly behind the cover of a pseudonym, that's his prerogative. Finch's comments are like saying that it's the fault of the African-American protestors in the 1960's when they got arrested even when they were engaging in peaceful, law-abiding protests for civil rights. The bottom line is that when you work for freedom, the oppressors in the system increase the persecution. So it's not my fault that the climate is hostile towards ID. I stand against persecution. It's the fault of the Darwinists who persecute ID-proponents. But I hope that through my past work with IDEA Clubs, promoting serious and friendly discussions about ID on college campuses in a peaceful and respectful fashion, I have done something to de-politicize the situation. There's another problem with Atticus Finch's comments, namely that he/she has absolutely no idea what he/she is talking about. One of my primary responsibilities in my job is to actually DISCOURAGE people from trying to push ID into public schools because that would politicize the situation even further. I recently published an article in Salvo Magazine stating precisely this position:
"I don't think the solution is to force intelligent design (ID) into schools. Whenever ID has been required by a school district, it has immediately generated controversy, which politicizes the theory. The long-term success of ID depends on its scientists having opportunities to produce good scientific research and scholarship rather than being dragged before courts or school boards to defend ill-advised evolution-education policies. ... The reasons ID should not be required in schools stem not, as some assert, from any lack of content with which to form an ID-based science curriculum. Nor is it because ID is unconstitutional. The priority of the ID movement is to see ID develop as a scientific theory, and forcing ID into schools would take the debate out of the scientific realm and turn it into a political hot potato." (Casey Luskin, "What do ID Proponents Want Taught in Public Schools," Salvo Magazine, Issue 4, Winter 2008, pages. 73-74, emphasis added)
So I actually advocate policies that aspire to de-politicize the situation. Another dimension of my job is to assist students and faculty who are victims of this persecution. But I'm trying to help end the persecution. On a daily basis I see persecution of ID proponents that no one even hears about because we can't make it public--to protect the victims. Those like Atticus Finch who blame the victims are part of the problem, not the solution.Casey Luskin_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Denyse, You're too kind (to Atticus that is). I've booted him/her off the forum. If SETI is science, then ID is science. The burden is on those who want to say that ID isn't science. In particular, the very possibility of finding evidence for design in biology makes ID a science. One can dispute the strength of the evidence for it, but then again, one can dispute the strength of the evidence for Darwinism (does the fossil record really support common descent via small undirected changes?). As for your post, I run into this all the time where correspondents ask to be kept anonymous to preserve their careers. The most notable case was an old mathematician friend of mine from the University of Chicago (now elsewhere) who didn't want to be acknowledged for providing the crucial help I needed to prove a theorem that is the key to a paper Bob Marks and I currently have under submission at THE JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY (well, actually, no, it's not been submitted there; but if it were and if I had just announced it here, you can be sure the editors at JTB would hear about it and be urged to reject it).William Dembski_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Atticus Finch, thanks for being part of the problem. Now, would you please give your real name, if it is not Atticus Finch. No one is likely to persecute you. That usually happens to people who know evidence against materialist proclamations, not people who split hairs about how the evidence should be advanced, by whom, and what words should be used. Yes, my real name is Denyse O'Leary, and almost everything that is of any importance about me is public record. Who are YOU?O'Leary_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Denyse O'Leary, a quote from a quote in your article of yesterday:
[Steve Fuller, witness for the defense in Kitzmiller,] provides interesting examples of how religiously inspired ID views have driven the work of many eminent biologists, and suggests that ID should be promoted as “an openly religious viewpoint with scientific aspirations."
I agree with Fuller, and in the context of this thread recall immediately what the pseudonymous Mike Gene has written (as quoted here by William Dembski):
I should make it explicitly clear from the start that I did not write this book to help those seeking to change the way we teach science to our kids. I do not argue that design deserves to be known as science. At best, Intelligent Design may only be a nascent proto-science and thus does not belong in the public school curriculum. Nor does this book argue that evolution is false and deserves to be criticized in the public school curriculum. If the truth is to be told, I oppose such actions.
A big public-relations problem for ID theory in the scientific community is that leading theorists have associated themselves with the ID movement. And the ID movement is all about proclaiming ID theory science -- already. Fuller, as a sociology professor, knows very well that the "ground rules" of science are part of an evolving culture. There is nothing wrong with working openly to show that the ground rules should be changed to permit explanations of nature that are presently excluded. If all ID theorists were like "Mike Gene," there would be no reason for them to hide their identities. The problem for people legitimately pursuing change in what constitutes science is those illegitimately declaring, without doing the hard work to achieve change, that ID is science and that the scientific establishment opposes ID because of ideological commitment to materialism, if not atheism. It is ironic that Casey Luskin, as a paid political activist in the intelligent design movement, has done a great deal to make it unsafe for grad students to express openly their interest in ID theory.Atticus Finch_{July 25, 2008
July
07
Jul
25
25
2008
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply