Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian Debating Device #10: “The Double Standard”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this post Dr. Torley engages in a philosophical discussion about the nature of God. In the comment thread we have Graham2 saying:

This site lost any claim to the practice of impartial science long long ago.

And william spearshake says:

UD, which purports to be in support of the “science” of ID, supposedly not religiously based, loses what little credibility it has when it’s moderator continues to allow articles that are purely religious.

It should be noted for the record that Dr. Torley did not start this discussion. He was responding to a post by one of the world’s most prominent materialist atheists, Jerry Coyne.

I did a quick check through the comment thread to Dr. Coyne’s post, and I did not see anything from Graham2 or william about how Coyne’s site could no longer be considered a credible source of information about evolutionary science. Maybe I missed it. If so, I am sure Graham2 or william will point it out. I won’t be holding my breath.

In summary, when atheist Coyne talks about religious issues, he gets a free pass, but when UD responds to Coyne’s post we are accused of losing our scientific credibility. There’s a double standard for you.

Here’s a clue for Graham2 and william. Religion and evolution have been inextricably intertwined since at least Origin of Species, which is an intensely and self-consciously religious text at its very core.

Comments
Roy, why the hypocricy? You bemoan any ID post on 'religion' yet you are completely numb to Darwinism faulty theological foundation? https://uncommondescent.com/ddd/on-double-standards/#comment-515578 along this line, it might interest you to know that, not only was modern science born out of Judeo-Christian worldview, modern science continues to be reliant on principles that can only be rationally grounded in the Theistic worldview: Epistemology - Why Should The Human Mind Even Comprehend Reality? - Stephen Meyer https://vimeo.com/32145998 Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdfbornagain77
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PST
Re
Roy, since you are so concerned about ‘religion’ in science, ...
File under #11. RoyRoy
October 19, 2014
October
10
Oct
19
19
2014
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PST
Roy:
But that does not affect my point – that william spearshake is correct, as Barry Arrington allowed an article on religion to be posted here.
That has been explained and your willful ignorance is very telling.Joe
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PST
Roy, since you are so concerned about 'religion' in science, it might interest you to know, as pointed out at post 4,, ‘evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going’,,, Don't believe it? well,, Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 So much for the religious neutrality of Darwinism ehh?bornagain77
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PST
Ok, I should have said "religious forums" rather than "other religious forums". Not being a frequenter of Coyne's site I just assumed from the context that it was about religion. Apparently I was wrong. But that does not affect my point - that william spearshake is correct, as Barry Arrington allowed an article on religion to be posted here. RoyRoy
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PST
F/N: Intellectual double-standards are of course a hallmark of selective hyperskepticism. If there are thinks you are unduly skeptical about, such requires flaws in reasoning that -- to stabilise the system -- force one to be unduly credulous in assessing favoured substitutes. If you dismiss what you ought not to, it is directly tied to why you accept what you should not. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PST
Otros: I think tone is deteriorating and should be lifted from the dung beetle level. Please. KFkairosfocus
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PST
T: If you wish to debate on scientific matters in the context of the DDD series, what is now no 8 -- a specific fallacy of reasoning inductively and analytically on a matter of core science -- will be I believe quite relevant. KF PS: Beyond, if there are core reasoning/rationality and worldviews a priori imposition issues as well as specific fallacies at work on the part of many objectors to design thought, that is a highly important matter to address. After all, reasoning acts as a whole.kairosfocus
October 18, 2014
October
10
Oct
18
18
2014
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PST
So tintinnid is feeding at the trough. Nice to know. And what does Mapou have against dung beetles?Joe
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PST
And I always thought that it was Louis the magnificent. Oh well, I guess we can share.tintinnid
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PST
tintin the magnificent:
Barry re-posts the lame Darwinist Debating tactics and the usual suspects come out to feed at the trough.
And dung beetles like you feed on their droppings. LOL.Mapou
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PST
Joe: "Wow, that is just sad logic from tintinnid. Pathetic, actually." Barry re-posts the lame Darwinist Debating tactics and the usual suspects come out to feed at the trough.tintinnid
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PST
From Darwinian evolution we learn that religion and metaphysics are pointless pursuits, therefore, they ought not be discussed at a site like UD. It's morally wrong, don't you know.Mung
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PST
tintin the banned religionist:
I don’t think that anyone is saying that ID sites should never talk about religion, or that evolution sites should never talk about religion.
LOL. The notion that Darwinian evolution should never talk about religion is n laughable oxymoron on the face of it since we all know that Darwinian evolution is nothing but chicken feather voodoo. Evolution is built with one superstitious belief on top of another, in the not-even-wrong religious category. John Von Neumann, the famous mathematician father of modern digital computers laughed at it. Personally, I just defecate on it. :-DMapou
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PST
You have another Guillermoe on your hands! Or has he come back in a new incarnation?Axel
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PST
Not comical, Joe? Surely.Axel
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PST
Wow, that is just sad logic from tintinnid. Pathetic, actually.Joe
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PST
I don't think that anyone is saying that ID sites should never talk about religion, or that evolution sites should never talk about religion. But regardless of the web site, if they are claiming to be about science, allowing a significant proportion of OPs to be about faith based subjects simply undermines their claims about being about science.tintinnid
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PST
This is a news site to discuss ID and issues related to it. If the purpose of the site is stated to be simply a scientific discussion of the issues, then we can understand the complaint of Roy, et al. But I do not believe this site has those rules. Roy may think it should have those rules. Fair enough, but he is not in charge of the site. He seems incapable of realizing that these issues have huge implications for metaphysics, whether it be of the atheist type or the theist type. Metaphysics are discussed on almost any science website so, like the OP says, there is a double standard here. Roy is implying that only Darwinian sites or sites that cater to naturalism are permitted to discuss metaphysics without harming their reputation as dependable science sites. All discussions of metaphysics on ID or creationist sites render the site invalid and unscientific. It's like the good professor Barash who was highlighted a week ago or so who always gives his students "the talk" in his college freshman classes. Barash is allowed to speak about metaphysics in his college class, but IDers are not. Only certain metaphysical views are permitted in college education. Atheistic views are encouraged while theistic views are frowned upon. Profs with theistic metaphysics are reprimanded, ridiculed, demoted, or even fired for daring to discuss their metaphysics. Only atheists are permitted to do this! It is yet another example of the double standard. The only way that worldviews that allow for God are permitted to be discussed in schools is in a negative bashing sort of way. Atheism and naturalism however face no such restrictions. Why?! It is the atheist's strategy to keep control of education so they can brainwash as many kids as possible and hopefully defeat religion in society. Hence the double standard. And the good name of science is defamed in this disturbing effort! Great Point, VJ!tjguy
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST
Roy, Joe has got you at 22. It seems you have three choices: 1. Admit that Coyne's site is a religious site (absurd) 2. Admit that your comment @ 21 is wrong and apologize (We won't be holding our breath). 3. Hold yourself out as yet another example of a Darwinist who insists on a double standard. We assume this is the route you will take and thank you in advance for illustrating the point of the OP again (as if we needed more illustrations).Barry Arrington
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PST
To the interested: Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and trained physicist, has written on the subject of ID. He is not in favor of it. He thinks that the way to dispell the Darwinian myth is via philosophical arguments. So, two points: (1) To those who bellyache about a religious/philosophical topic being part of a blog dedicated to promoting ID, and the end of Darwinian silliness, I would ask: if Fr. Jaki prefers philosophical arguments in the attack against Darwinism, rather than ID, does that not meant that ID is NOT a religious/philosophical argument? (2) Again, to those who bellyache: if, in Fr. Jaki's view, philosophical/religious arguments refute Darwinism, is it then a 'surprise' that you would find such arguments on a blog that is dedicated to the end of Darwinian silliness? Grow up.PaV
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
LoL!@ Roy- So Coyne's site is a religious site. Nice to know, thanks. There isn't really much more to say about the science of ID- it has all be said time and again. And seeing that our opponents never discuss the science that supports the claims of their position, and instead choose to post religious blatherings, their posts are fair game to those who know better.Joe
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST
It should be noted for the record that Dr. Torley did not start this discussion. He was responding to a post by one of the world’s most prominent materialist atheists, Jerry Coyne.
Coyne's post was hosted elsewhere; Dr Torley chose to start the discussion here. He could have responded to Coyne's post on Coyne's own site, or on any number of other religious forums. Instead, he chose to instigate a purely religious thread here. And you allowed it. Your objection serves only to illustrate the truth of william spearshake's point. RoyRoy
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST
Don't forget the numero uno debating tactit - all of biology depends on evolution, and assorted paraphrases.Peter
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PST
For what it is worth: Entirely secular newspapers run lots of religious news and commentary, especially on the weekend - for two obvious reasons: Major religions' observances tend to be clustered between Friday and Sunday. (Others' can be sandwiched there, typically with their approval. Theirs is usually a perennial story, not a breaking one.) Most people with a breaking science news story ("10% of Maldeelian grass snakes are two-headed, due to river pollution") will NOT break it on the Friday news dump, so we can expect to hear about it Monday instead. None of this has anything to do with support or opposition to religion as such; it is just how news cycles work. Vince Torley posts when he can. We are darn lucky to have him.News
October 17, 2014
October
10
Oct
17
17
2014
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PST
Thanks Mung @2 Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740 And UD is accused of double standards because of why exactly? It seems appaent that evolutionists are dependent on theological presuppositions much more that IDists are. ,,, ie. IDists make a minimal claim that only intelligence can produce information rich, irreducibly complex, systems. Whereas evolutionists go full bore into theology and are making theological arguments that presuppose not only the existence of God, but arguments that presuppose the exact character, and nature, of God, so as to refute that 'straw man' version of God they erected. Just don't ask them to show you a molecular machine arrived at by Darwinian processes, because on that score there is no evidence for Darwinists!bornagain77
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST
Personally, I'm in agreement with those who think it IS appropriate for this site to discuss issues beyond the straight science. ID is not religion, but when the case for ID in biology is combined with the case for ID in astronomy and cosmology, it has implications that, at least potentially, are religious. If some members with the ID community want to talk about that on a site that is "serving the Intelligent Design community", I don't really see a problem with that. Furthermore, one of the main roadblocks preventing ID from making headway in the scientific community is the principle of methodological naturalism/materialism, which prevents the scientific evidence for design from being honestly considered on its own merits. It seems to me that if, through philosophical discussion, it can be made clear that certain things that people believe to be true, such as the existence of objective moral values and duties, cannot be explained by naturalism/materialism, then that will help to break down the artificial intellectual constraints that methodological naturalism has placed upon the sciences. And that can only be a good thing for science, rationality and open inquiry in general.HeKS
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST
Science is overrated. All an experiment can do ,is prove that in certain circumstances, at a particular coordinate , in a particular point of time, an experiment works. Any conclusion drawn beyond that is supposition which is subjective. If subjectivity comes into play where is 'Science' in it ? How is it superior to religious belief ?the bystander
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PST
UD, which purports to be in support of the “science” of ID, supposedly not religiously based, loses what little credibility it has when it’s moderator continues to allow articles that are purely religious.
People discuss religious and ethical views on UD and therefore there is no evidence of design in nature? I'd call that a weak argument.
UD spends most of its time highlighting any disagreement amongst evolution researchers, which is a sign of a healthy science, rather than highlighting research that specifically supports ID.
Fair enough as long as you place that observation in context. ID-supporters are a small minority within science. The most difficult challenge today is to carve out a niche so more researchers will emerge and more serious papers will be published. Gauger, Axe and Durston are younger scientists doing ID research. More will follow. In the meantime, it's been very difficult to challenge the dominant scientific culture which still considers itself "Darwinian" and much of it insists "there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory". That kind of barrier has to be broken down. Thus the focus on the uncertainty of evolutionary claims. If natural processes cannot explain irreducible complexity, then ID is a more reasonable explanation.Silver Asiatic
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PST
Hi everyone, I've posted this on the thread that Barry Arrington linked to, but to save you all the trouble of clicking, I've decided to post it here as well. Some people have asked why a topic like this should even come up for discussion at Uncommon Descent. That's a fair question - Intelligent Design is a science, after all. But one could argue that ethics too, albeit of a practical sort. Because the modern scientific method eschews norms (and final causes), ethics appears unscientific to modern eyes. But if one is willing to allow (as Aristotle would have done) that what is good for us is something written into our nature as human beings, then it follows that there could be unconditionally binding ethical norms, which it could never be good for us to violate. Here's where the relevance to Intelligent Design comes in. According to some Intelligent Design arguments (e.g. Robin Collins' version of the fine-tuning argument), the entire cosmos (by which I mean the multiverse, and not just our universe) is the product of an Intelligent Designer, Who therefore transcends the laws of space and time. In other words, if Intelligent esign is true, then a transcendent Creator is a live option. But (a skeptic might object), if such a Creator existed, He would be beholden to no-one, and would be able to command any human being to do anything. That in turn would make a mockery of the science of ethics. Consequently (the objection goes), we can make a reductio argument: 1. If Intelligent Design theory is true, then a Transcendent Creator possibly exists. 2. If a Transcendent Creator exists, there are no absolute ethical obligations. 3. But there are absolute ethical obligations. 4. Therefore a Transcendent Creator cannot possibly exist. 5. Therefore Intelligent Design theory is false. Of course, I realize that the vast majority of skeptics wouldn't accept premise 3 anyway, as they're utilitarians (and usually act utilitarians at that). However, a skeptic who adhered to a naturalistic theory of ethics (say, a Kantian atheist, or an Ayn Rand-style objectivist who adheres to a broadly Aristotelian ethic) could argue in this fashion, and could invoke the above syllogism as an argument for refusing even to bother examining the scientific claims of Intelligent Design theory. Thus the scientific case for ID would never even get off the ground: such a skeptic would probably refuse to even listen to it. In order to get through to this skeptic, it is first necessary to deflate their logic. And to do that, one must show why the assumption that if a transcendent Creator existed, He would be beholden to no-one, and would be able to command any human being to do anything, is wrong. That in turn requires a careful and critical examination of the Divine command theory of ethics. One must be able to show that there are certain kinds of actions which an all-loving transcendent Creator could never command anyone to perform. And since it is at least plausible to suppose that a transcendent Creator would be all-loving, it follows that the claim that such a Creator could command any human being to do anything is false. It may be objected that one should examine the scientific claims of Intelligent Design first, in an impartial fashion, before making up their minds about its merits. In the real world, however, people seldom make up their minds in such a logical fashion. Many people think with their hearts first, rather than their heads. It is for that reason that I believe the post I wrote is relevant. Cheers.vjtorley
September 23, 2014
September
09
Sep
23
23
2014
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply