Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jack Krebs continues to feed mis-information to his fellow Darwinists

Salvador Cordova
September 12, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’ve been meaning to post this to give the Uncommon Descent community a chance to respond to an essay by Jack Krebs. Jack Krebs is president of a militant pro-Darwin organization in Kansas, and he writes in ID Moving On in Fighting the Culture War:

So where is the ID movement going now in this post-Dover, post-Kansas world?

Well, it seems to me that they are giving up on trying to seriously sell ID as science. Instead, they are forging full-steam ahead with their cultural “war of the worldviews” agenda, pitting materialism and atheism (as represented by science) against religious belief (as represented by their particular flavor of fundamentalist Christianity.)
….
Let’s get these social and cultural issues out on the table and work on them. This is not about science and never has been. Perhaps now ID can just die away, and we can focus on the real issues.

Jack effectively repeats the tired old misrepresentation that it’s ONLY about cultural issues, that it’s not about science.

His assertion is contradicted by people like Edward Sisson, David Berlinski, John Davison, Richard Sternberg, Stanly Salthe, Michael Denton, Frank Tipler or several others who don’t have a particular stake in some sort of culture war.

But Jack’s reasoning is understandable given that Jack is the sort of fellow that swallows the party line and repeats it. In 2005, in a discussion about Dembski’s work over at ARN I asked him repeatedly whether he read Dembski’s books, to which he reluctantly confessed he’d only read Shallit, Elsberry, and Perakh’s misrepresentations of ID theory. He was trying to debate me over Dembski’s works which he didn’t even read or have access to!

Jack is symbolic of the kind of leadership the militant pro-Darwinists have in office. Perhaps we should enlighten Jack’s closed mind. To that end, I invite those sympathetic to ID to answer the following two questions:

1. For me personally, ID is ONLY about cultural issues

2. I believe Blind Watchmaker evolution is a proven fact of science, and it’s ONLY because my religious faith and upbringing that I question Blind Watchmaker evolution

I answer “No” to #1 and #2.

How much you bet that Jack Krebs, after reading our answers, will continue to misrepresent our views and say it’s ONLY about cultural issues (it’s not about science and never has been)?

Salvador

PS
I’m not really involved in selling ID to public school boards or peer-reviewed journals. I’m involved in getting the discussions going in cyberspace, at the colleges, and among church members interested in science. I challenge Jack Krebs to find anywhere where I assert it’s ONLY about a culture war, or that Darwinian evolution should be disbelieved primarily because it is a cause for social or spiritual or moral ills.

Comments
Thanks to antg and Mats for their comments and questions. I have just a few minutes before work today, so here are some short replies. antg asks a key question: "could you please tell me if in your view there is any empirical difference between ‘blind watchmaker’ evolution and ‘theistic’ evolution? If so, can you give some examples. If not, surely the ‘theistic’ part of theistic evolution is superfluous?" I find it interesting that the combination of the two questions seems to imply that if something is not empirically detectable it is superfluous. I disagree strongly with that assumption. Let me try to explain why, and in the process answer antg's question. Science proceeds from empirical evidence - evidence that can be gathered from our sensory experience of the physical world. Sensory experience is not the only type of experience we have. We have a whole range of internal experience having to do with emotions, aesthetics, values, choices, meanings and understandings, etc. These experiences are not empirically observable by others and fall outside the realm of scientific investigation. Our beliefs about God (or whatever metaphysical beliefs we hold) and all the related effects such beliefs have on our internal life are critically important to who we are as human beings. All of our internal experiences are about who we are as a person, which is a different realm that how the physical world works. So our beliefs about God are not by any means superfluous. God is detected through internal experience, not through external empirical investigation. This does not mean that God is not present in the physical world: to the theistic evolutionist all of the world - every moment of it, is an expression of God's will and design as expressed through the outflowing of natural processes. This does not mean, however, that this is the only way God expresses himself - he expresses himself through our internal experience of ourself also, and through this expression informs our moral and spiritual life and the actions that flow from that. What I have just written is quite consistent with standard Christian theology. Chris Hyland's succinctly summarized this when he answered angt's question by writing "Scientifically speaking there isn’t one, philosophically speaking there is a big difference." Mats asked a number of questions. Here are very brief answers 1. "But…what you call “science” (Evolution) was promulgated as means to refute Divine Intervention in the biological realm. As Denton says it, Darwinism cut the link between man and God. It is not, and it was never a God-neutral theory." I disagree with most of this statement. I will say that the theory of evolution does state that the special creation of species by Divine intervention is wrong. This is not an argument against a God that creates within the context of natural processes. 2. "Secondly, as you very well know, theistic evolution is no diferent than atheistic evolution in its aproach to evolution. Both say that, according to the scientific evidence (their version of evidence at least), natural laws are suficient to generate the biological complex systems present in life. What TEs do is that they use the athestic assumption that God’s activity in nature is not detectable, and then propose a naturalistic mechanism. At the end of this they say “This must be how God did it!”." The idea that the generation of "biological complex systems present in life" and that "God's activity in nature is not [empirically] detectable" is not solely an "atheistic assumption": it is a belief of many people from many religions, including, as explained in my answer to angt, many Christians. Just because a theist and an atheist agree on something doesn't make what they agree on atheistic. 3. "Thirdly, the fact that people with religious beliefs agree with unguided evolution, doesn’t mean that evolution doesn’t have anti-Theistic implications." The same theme runs throughout all these questions. The non-theist draws non-theistic conclusions from science and the theist draws theistic conclusions. All theists accept that the manifestation of God's will includes events that to us look like luck. We can't see the world as God sees the world. Just because some things appears as chance to us when we investigate the world empirically doesn't mean that they are chance to God. In fact, a central thing that baffles me about this "unguided evolution" concern is that it seems to contain the assumption that God's view of the world is essentially the same as ours, and through science therefore we ought to be able to see the world as God does. This view is utterly at odds with the fundamental Christian belief that God's nature is beyond our comprehension - ultimately a mystery that we approach spiritually. It's seem spiritually arrogant to me to think that the human activity of doing science can reveal the specific details of God's mysterious presence. Science just isn't the tool for finding or relating to God.Jack Krebs
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
1. No. I really didn\'t become aware of the cultural aspects of this debate until hanging around on UD for a while. 2. No. I was a good little college professor\'s pet and believed every word they told me. My beliefs didn\'t cause any internal conflict--I didn\'t emotionally \"dislike\" evolution before reading ID literature. EDIT: Not to say that I \"dislike\" it now, but my opposition wasn\'t caused by emotional reasoning.Patrick
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
"Coming to a philosophical conclusion that Gods design cannot be detected seems interesting to me, as all we can say from a scientific point of view is that it currently hasn’t been. " It seems to me that leads it to two conclusions. 1. God exists, but he's very deceptive. 2. God doesn't exist. Well, those two or people are adherents in a religion they know is a fantasy and merely makes them feel warm and fuzzy. On Sundays, they pretend to feel warm and fuzzy, and the rest of the week they're rational and know that it's nonsense. If from a scientific point of view, there's no difference between blind watchmaker and theistic evolution- then that means the theistic evolutionists are just foolish people who WANT to believe, right? You say it's not science but philosophy, but who says what's part of science? How is design automatically banned from science? Is there any good reason? Why is the idea that any evolution is directed outside of science? How do the two mix? Is it, as I suspect, the situation above- one day a week you can make believe, and the rest of the week you can be rational and say God doesn't exist? If there's no difference scientifically between blind watchmaker evolution that says you and your kids, your parents and friends are all the result of accidental cancers (isn't a genetic mutation "cancer" basically?) - doesn't that say, to all rational people that science, if that's what this says, is atheistic? Science was clearly not always this way, as modern science was bourne out of Christian societies in Europe, in which it was inherently theistic for 99% of those who practiced it. If the science side says you're the result of a trillion cancers- isn't that itself atheistic? Is God only allowed to be relegated to the philosophical and unobservable? We can't see or observe him or his actions, but we can pretend Mon-Sat? That's how it seems to me.JasonTheGreek
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
I think the main problem is that when people hear the phrase 'Intelligent Design Movement', they think of the movement to get ID taught in schools. This movement appears to be mainly a religiously motivated movement based on statements by various school officials etc. involved, and mostly has the affect of highlighting links to creationism. "If you are still reading, could you please tell me if in your view there is any empirical difference between ‘blind watchmaker’ evolution and ‘theistic’ evolution? If so, can you give some examples. If not, surely the ‘theistic’ part of theistic evolution is superfluous?" Scientifically speaking there isn't one, philosophically speaking there is a big difference. "What TEs do is that they use the athestic assumption that God’s activity in nature is not detectable, and then propose a naturalistic mechanism." Coming to a philosophical conclusion that Gods design cannot be detected seems interesting to me, as all we can say from a scientific point of view is that it currently hasn't been.Chris Hyland
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
I agree with Jack Krebs. Here is the proof from Dover, PA and Kansas. http://www.bringyou.to/NCSEDover.mp3 http://www.bringyou.to/KenMillerKS092006.mp3 See you all at the U.S.F. Sun Dome end of this month for more proof. :-) Phil PPhilVaz
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
No and no.mike1962
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
I come from a city in Australia where the evangelicals seem to be largely committed to a view of the material world, which says that it "is impossible to prove God by science". Most hold to a form of theistic evolution. I would be culturally more comfortable and less isolated if I agreed that "design detection" is by philisophical definition impossible. It is my training as a medical doctor and my reading over 25 years in the biological sciences that leads me to support the demonstrable detection of design in nature. I am willing to jump out of my small ID lifeboat, back onto the listing Darwinian Titanic, if someone shows me it has no gaping hole in it. My faith does not depend on God being scientifically detectable. My scientific knowledge, not my faith, dictates my involvement in the ID movement. I recently spent a whole day editing Emile Zuckerkandl's article for our web site because I really do want to understand where the anti IDers are coming from. So far I have found no science to support faith in an undirected evolution.idnet.com.au
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Jack,
Many people accept the theory of evolution and are also theists - this has been discussed many times, so you are loading the science with a metaphysical overlay when you use the phrase \”Blind Watchmaker evolution.\”
But...what you call "science" (Evolution) was promulgated as means to refute Divine Intervention in the biological realm. As Denton says it, Darwinism cut the link between man and God. It is not, and it was never a God-neutral theory. Secondly, as you very well know, theistic evolution is no diferent than atheistic evolution in its aproach to evolution. Both say that, according to the scientific evidence (their version of evidence at least), natural laws are suficient to generate the biological complex systems present in life. What TEs do is that they use the athestic assumption that God's activity in nature is not detectable, and then propose a naturalistic mechanism. At the end of this they say "This must be how God did it!". Thirdly, the fact that people with religious beliefs agree with unguided evolution, doesn't mean that evolution doesn't have anti-Theistic implications. Fourthly, pointing out to religious people who agree with evolution, doesn't answer the scientific evidence that is used against Darwinism. Finnaly, even if all the religious people agreeded with evolutionism, Darwinists would still have to answer to folks like Denton, Dave Berlinsky and Richard Milton. Surelly you don't plan on poiting out to their (non-existent) religious beliefs as the reason they oppose unguided evolution..Mats
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT
Jack Krebs, If you are still reading, could you please tell me if in your view there is any empirical difference between 'blind watchmaker' evolution and 'theistic' evolution? If so, can you give some examples. If not, surely the 'theistic' part of theistic evolution is superfluous? Thanks, antgantg
September 13, 2006
September
09
Sep
13
13
2006
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Oops. I put my comments in the blockquotes and left out the definition. Let's try this again. Here's the dictionary.com definition of "fundamentalism": fun‧da‧men‧tal‧ism  /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming. 2. the beliefs held by those in this movement. 3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.JasonTheGreek
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT
From Jack's PT post:
against religious belief (as represented by their particular flavor of fundamentalist Christianity
Dictionary.com lists "fundamentalism" as:
I've never understood why "fundamentalism" is such an evil to some people. The idea that a religious adherent would take their holy book seriously? Gasp! Heavens no! How else would an adherent take it? As a fantasy fiction novel? If so- why even call yourself an adherent if you think it's all bogus? An adherent who holds that the Bible is historically true? Where's the problem with that. If it's not historical, we can assume it's wrong. If it's wrong, again- why would you call yourself an adherent? The idea that the world was created as the Bible says it was? Now, I don't see how this is such a bad thing. It might be wrong, but I don't see it as evil or some sort of social ill or anything like that. We know, from the text, that the creation story was written in the form of a historical narrative. There's room for debate as to the age of the earth and that sort of thing (one could even argue that when the book says that the earth gave rise to plants and such that we could say this was evolution in action), but the overall view that God created life and that man is the ultimate act of creation by God is hardly up for debate in my mind. The atonement and the rest. I don't see why you'd even call yourself a Christian at all if you thought all of that was bogus. I guess I don't see why "Christian fundamentalism" is so often used as a scare word, social ill- just bad, in general. It seems, to me, that a better view of "fundamentalism" is a Christian who takes the Bible seriously and accepts what is says as nonfiction as opposed to fantasy that you know is bogus but still makes you feel warm and gushy.
JasonTheGreek
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
However this phrasing mixes science and metaphysics, because you (and many others) use \”Blind Watchmaker evolution\” to mean a strictly materialistic interpretation of evolution (to use Ken Miller\’s phrase from a few days ago.) Many people accept the theory of evolution and are also theists - this has been discussed many times, so you are loading the science with a metaphysical overlay when you use the phrase \”Blind Watchmaker evolution.\”
It's often said that, in regards to Darwinism, all of biology is the result of a trillion accidents. How would a trillion accidents NOT equal a blind watchmaker scenario? NDE says that living things have accidental mutations that are random. They're random in that we cannot predict when they will occur, where they will occur, etc. Living things that have these accidents live longer, thus passing the accidents on to their offspring. Their offspring accumulate many accidents and eventually down the line, they change slowly into different species altogether at some point. They branch out via the result of even more accidents. More species come about and branch out even more. And on and on. I see no way of labelling NDE as anything but blind watchmaker. What other choice do you have besides evolution that was guided? Wouldn't that mean theistic evolution? That's what Behe calls himself- a theistic evolutionist basically. So, you're on the ID side now? I'm confused. I'm also wondering how you can get anything besides blind watchmaker from NDE. Maybe you're saying that the part about all the accidents is science but that the idea that it was totally a blind watchmaker process is metaphysics? What would that mean then? One is rational (the science side of things), and the other is fantasy (the theistic part of it)?? If you're a theist, how do you conclude that you cannot scientifically observe design? What other way would you observe design? If you think God exists but that no design is observable in any scientific way, doesn't that make you a deist? Or do you hold to the idea of a deceptive God who made design impossible to observe? I honestly don't get theists who hold to the idea that design is just not s scientific idea, or that you cannot mix the two (the science and what you would call the metaphysical aspects.) To me, that sounds like a theist who isn't really that confident that his theistic worldview is right, but sort of likes the warm feeling it gives him. I don't see how I could call myself a theist and conclude that the idea of design in biology/nature/etc. is wrong.JasonTheGreek
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Jack, I am sorry for the delay in your posts appearing. I have nothing to with it. Not that I really care if you personally reform your outlook since your mistaken beliefs will only add to your ineffective ability to persuade. If you go around tellling people their rejection of Darwinism is rooted in cultural issues, (when for many it is clearly not) how can you expect to have an ounce of credebility in their eyes? You're dictating to them something they know is clearly untrue. So, in my view go ahead and keep feeding misinformation to your fellow Darwinists. They'll go to some young IDer who thinks Darwinism fails as a scientific theory, and tell him, "look kid, you're fundie background is why you think so illogically and ignorantly". I'm sure he'll be convinced (sarcasm). Salvadorscordova
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
BarryA, Something happened to you comment when I was moderating this thread. WordPress whacked it when I tried to delete some one else\'s comments. I\'m really sorry. Salscordova
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
By the way, no and no. ID does not touch upon my cultural or ethical outlook, religion can survive just fine without it, and BWE is unproven, uninteresting and unimportant in my view. Yes, I have a bias.Charlie
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT
Carlos, " I would say that most of the ID sympathizers I’ve interacted with here are convinced, for ethical or religious pr metaphysical reasons, that evolution cannot be true, and that this motivates the support of ID. " Most IDers accept that evolution is true. "If that weren’t the case, I’d expect some genuine materialists among the ID supporters — “AID,” as I would have said — people who are fine with materialistic metaphysics — or at least who just don’t care about it one way or the other — but who find that the preponderance of the evidence requires intelligent intervention at some stage. " Funny you seem to read into this a limitation of ID thinking rather than materialistic thinking. Perhaps it is rejection of ID which is entirely cultural?Charlie
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
I'd also add.
But “only cultural” is slightly misleading. I would say that most of the ID sympathizers I’ve interacted with here are convinced, for ethical or religious pr metaphysical reasons, that evolution cannot be true, and that this motivates the support of ID.
It seems you think anyone who supports ID is blind to reality. Anyone who supports ID cannot possibly see the evidence the way they do because of the facts, but because of their religious beliefs that force them to ignore the facts and hold onto a fantasy that they know deep down is a fantasy. Maybe you meant it in another manner, but that's how it sounded. I'd say that if a person believes in ID for ethical or religious reasons, and is blind to the truth (let's argue ID is wrong and that purely random mutations plus NS is sufficient to explain all life)- that person could easily be labeled "stupid" in my book. Anyone who denies a truth for religious reasons has something going on that isn't all that good. It's the same as saying "I refuse to believe the grass is green, because of my religious 'beliefs'." That man would be a truly foolish man. What ethical reason would a person have for being convinced that "evolution cannot be true"? I don't understand what ethical advantage denying a fact (if it were a fact) could hold. Also- ID isn't anti-evolution. I'd guess that most people here are fine with evolution in general, but have problems with the supposed mechanism involved. ID isn't anti-evolution (no matter that some foolish people start sites called anti-evolution and attack ID on it). It's, from what I can tell, anti-Darwinistic in that it takes issues with random mutation and natural selection being anywhere near possible to explain the diversity of all life.JasonTheGreek
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
From what I've read, I have a feeling that DaveScot and John Davison aren't religious and are both agnostic. I could be wrong, but from previous comments, that seems to be the case of at least these two. Yet, they both seem to support ID. Neither one seem to care much for the idea of the supernatural either. I'd say that you've found 2 right there. I have a feeling you're not trying too hard, as it's obvious that many people here support ID, and do so for non-religious reasons, which would lead me to conclude that some of them are fine with a worldview that discounts the supernatural and that is based solely on materialistic ideas. I can't speak for either of the two, but like I said- previous comments seem to point in that direction.JasonTheGreek
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Carlos, I should have clarified. The questions were not for anti-IDers. I\'m going to edit the post above to reflect that. Salvadorscordova
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT
I would say "yes" to (1), but you already knew that about me. Let's just say that I believed that when I started participating in these conversations, and I haven't yet been persuaded otherwise. But "only cultural" is slightly misleading. I would say that most of the ID sympathizers I've interacted with here are convinced, for ethical or religious pr metaphysical reasons, that evolution cannot be true, and that this motivates the support of ID. If that weren't the case, I'd expect some genuine materialists among the ID supporters -- "AID," as I would have said -- people who are fine with materialistic metaphysics -- or at least who just don't care about it one way or the other -- but who find that the preponderance of the evidence requires intelligent intervention at some stage. I haven't found anyone here who thinks that -- at least not so far as I know! -- but rather I've found the opposite -- the chief complaint is that evolution must be false because it implies a materialist metaphysics, and we all know why that must be wrong (radix malorum est materia?).Carlos
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
Sal writes, \"But Jack’s reasoning is understandable given that Jack is the sort of fellow that swallows the party line and repeats it.\" That is exactly not the kind of fellow I am, Sal. This type of statement adds nothing to your analysis of my so-called representations. Also, when I say this is about cultural (religious, philosophical, etc.) issues and not scientific issues, I don\'t pretend to be saying that this represents your and other views: I know you feel the issue is really about science. What I am saying is that I don\'t think it is about science - I think it is about cultural issues. I disagree with you, but that is different than misrepresenting your views. And last, you phrase your second question \"I believe Blind Watchmaker evolution is a proven fact of science.\" However this phrasing mixes science and metaphysics, because you (and many others) use \"Blind Watchmaker evolution\" to mean a strictly materialistic interpretation of evolution (to use Ken Miller\'s phrase from a few days ago.) Many people accept the theory of evolution and are also theists - this has been discussed many times, so you are loading the science with a metaphysical overlay when you use the phrase \"Blind Watchmaker evolution.\"Jack Krebs
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT
No & No. For me it's all about finding out the reality to our existence and then trying to understand that existence in that light. I feel that way about anything we observe and choose to understand- what is it? how did it get here (there)? can I poke it with a stick? will it poke me back?Joseph
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply