Richard Lewontin in The New York Review of Books

_{William Dembski

May 13, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Richard Lewontin, in reviewing several books that celebrate Darwinism, writes

…There remains, nevertheless, a substantial population whose commitment to a fundamentalist Christian belief in divine creation of the earth and its inhabitants has driven them to political action. Having been convinced that the separation of church and state is here to stay, they have adopted a pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design in which the designer is unspecified, and attempted to introduce it into the school curricula in the name of intellectual openness. The scientific community has the definite sense of being embattled and one of its responses is to use the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of its apostle of truth about the material basis of evolution and the 150th anniversary of the appearance of his gospel to carry on the struggle against obscurantism. Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True is intended as a weapon in that struggle…

Source: www.nybooks.com/articles/22694

Comments

----David: "Alternatively, it may be that your position is incoherent, or that I understand it but differently from you, and so forth." David: "My argument was and is that universe began with the big bang, which means that time began with the big bang. There is nothing to misunderstand about that position. Nothing. Therefore, when you say that I argued that "time" is a consequence of the universe, you obviously miss a point that could not be any more basic.StephenB_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

One more to Stephen: it seems pretty clear in the last thread that a photon can both exist and not exist, although some preferred to believe the LNC over the science. So there's at least that exception even within the universe.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

"Such comments make it clear that you do not yet grasp the subject matter under discussion." Alternatively, it may be that your position is incoherent, or that I understand it but differently from you, and so forth. Keeping my promise to Barry, I'm not going to go back and forth about kf's credentials. I will point out that Alan MacNeill has a day job that keeps him in close contact with the field.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

---David Kellogg: "This is a worthy accomplishment in itself, but I would not call him a “physicist,” and I certainly don’t know of anything he’s published in the field." I don't think it is fair for you to say that. Allen MacNeil has a masters degree in biology, and he is one of the most knowledgeable people around on the subject. As far as I know, you didn't question his credentials. Kairosfocus is one of the few physicists equipped to complement his knowledge of physics with a an in-depth knowledge of world-view perspectives. In any case, his status as a physicist, which is evident in his writings and commentaries, is not related to your unwarranted ad-hominems which just keep on coming. Since we are revisiting old news, I must point out that you made a serious logical error in your final assessment of my comments on the other thread. ---You wrote, “One part of my objection to StephenB’s argument is that it assumes that conditions (such as time) that are a consequence of the universe are operative before the universe (even though “before” would likely have no meaning).” Nothing could miss the point more. First, no one thinks that time is a “consequence” of the universe, since the entire argument stands on the principle that time, space, energy, and matter all began with the big bang. Second, I clearly did not argue or even imply that time was "operative before the universe," which would be the very opposite of my position. Such comments make it clear that you do not yet grasp the subject matter under discussion.StephenB_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

Hello Barry, if I may address you thusly! Why did you close comment on the thread "Is belief in God reasonable?"Alan Fox_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT}

Point taken Barry. (For what it's worth, my jabs were about his writing style, not his person -- I actually like him. I was not the one who brought up credentials; I only corrected another on that score. But I will take your advice.)David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg. Lay off of kairosfocus. If you have arguments, make them. You are veering too close to personal attacks.Barry Arrington_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

I heart you too Joseph. XOXOXODavid Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

OT @ vjtorley I was unable to respond to your comment on another thread as it was closed to further comments. If you would like to pursue the issue, email me at alanfox@free.frAlan Fox_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg:
Sure beats doing real research.
What is the "real research" that substantiates any claims made by the theory of evolution? There isn't any. All you have is to throw father time at every issue.Joseph_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

"Kairosfocus is a well-accomplished physicist." I don't want to dismiss kairosfocus's training, but this is just not true. I am pretty sure kairosfocus has a Master's in physics (as well as an MBA). This is a worthy accomplishment in itself, but I would not call him a "physicist," and I certainly don't know of anything he's published in the field.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

---Jerry: "I think the separation of church and state was a product of Hugo Black and his hatred for the Catholic Church. Black was an ex KKK clansman from Louisiana. The decision was in 1947 and involved bus transportation for Catholic school children." You are one of the very few people who understand the history and the significance of that event. As a bonus, Black, following Oliver Wendall Holmes, attacked and, for all practical purposes, destroyed the founders' concept of the "natural moral law." There are no disinterested parties in the ruling class. They either hate the moral order and everything associated with it, or they embrace it. Everyone has a dog in the fight, including the atheists---especially the athiests.StephenB_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

----David Kellog: "kairosfocus, as usual, you never tire of repeating your own examples." Kairosfocus is a well-accomplished physicist who has written much on a wide variety of topics. With regard to the length of his posts or his emphasis on a vital few points, his emphasis reflects a well-thought out strategy. Are you familiar with the 80/20 rule? It is a diagnostic process that identifies the 20% of factors that control 80% of the results. That means that the selected few factors that matter most must be emphasized and repeated. Building an argument in the context of a complete thought system is not as easy as it appears. On the other hand, it is indeed easy to scrutinize someone else's work. The hard part is to put one's own thoughts on the line and subject them to scrutiny. Few who visit this site are willing to do that. Offense it easy; defense is hard.StephenB_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

jerry, I'm not going to revisit those topics unless invited by someone pretending to "prove" the existence of God. As for this:
And by the way ID research fills a wing of every university library. Name me one study in any area of biology or cosmology or physics or chemistry that is not ID research. ID is nothing but the search for the truth so I doubt there are many studies that wold offend ID. ID is not hampered by any ideology so it can investigate any area and interpret any research ever done in an honest way.
Your concept of ID is so elastic as to be meaningless. But hey, claiming that all science is ID is great! Sure beats doing real research.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

A Google search suggests it’s almost exclusively used by kairosfocus. Then good for KF. It looks like he coined a useful word :-)tribune7_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, You should be thankful to kairosfocus. You can now continue where Barry stopped you. There is a perfect segue to further investigation of the LNC in his comment. Don't ungrateful. And by the way ID research fills a wing of every university library. Name me one study in any area of biology or cosmology or physics or chemistry that is not ID research. ID is nothing but the search for the truth so I doubt there are many studies that wold offend ID. ID is not hampered by any ideology so it can investigate any area and interpret any research ever done in an honest way. I am surprised you have not picked that up by now.jerry_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

A Google search suggests it's almost exclusively used by kairosfocus.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

I missed the inevitable reference to selective hyperskepticism, your own coinage and your favorite topic. David, I don't know if KF coined it but it describes the attitude many take to rationalize away the existence of God and other issues with which they disagree.tribune7_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

It's actually a threefer: I missed the inevitable reference to selective hyperskepticism, your own coinage and your favorite topic.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

uoflcard @ 1 IRT excerpt: "pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design in which the designer is unspecified" You wrote: "Why is this a requirement? That would be a completely unscientific statement, because there would be no way to naturally test or observe it (seeing that it is supernatural)." I don't know. I'm just curious about what he means by specifying a designer. Is that a requirement for inferring design these days? Even so, has dark matter or dark energy been specified? If one claims, yes indeed it has.. that is why we call it 'dark matter', then the ID-ist response should be.... well, the designer is what we will call the dark designer.... or light designer, whichever you prefer....because why does it matter what you call it? Oh, I remember, you have to give it a name for it to be science...doh! Specify what it is to specify a designer...I guess that's my question.JGuy_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 11 Nice catch, notwithstanding David's claim that your being repetitious. Even so, how would being repetitious matter if it's true & effecctive in illustrating an inconsistency. As for the context of Lewontin essay where he confessed that... I don't see how he would undo it, unless he states "just kidding" shortly afterwards in his essay. :PJGuy_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, as usual, you never tire of repeating your own examples. Above, a twofer: quoting that Lewontin passage for the umpteenth time (I wonder if you've ever read the whole essay, or if that matters?) and returning again to the fire example that nobody but you seems to think important or relevant. I look forward to further repetitions.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

H'mm: -Ologies and -Isms (2008) on obscurantism: "the use of argument intended to prevent enlightenment or to hinder the process of knowledge and wisdom." Sounds sadly familiar, in light of a previous writing by Mr Lewontin in the same NY Review of Books, in 1997, when he set out to review Mr Sagan's last book: >>The vast majority of us do not have control of the intellectual apparatus needed to explain manifest reality in material terms, so in place of scientific (i.e., correct material) explanations, we substitute demons . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . >> Oops . . . GEM of TKI PS: Mr Kellogg, the above example of self-referential inconsistency reminds us all too well of the recent thread just wrapped up by BA. For instance, on a point of correction: your remark at the end of the Reasonableness of theism thread would be funny if it were not so sadly illustrative of the absurdity of the sort of selective hyperskepticism at work. The fire triangle -- check your friendly local fire Dept -- is a classic illustration of causally necessary and sufficient conditions; one used in fact by Copi in his classic Logic, to discuss cause -- effect relationships. And, if A is causally necessary to and sufficient for B, then if A is there B is there too. So, if A is always there, B will be always there, by force of that relationship.kairosfocus_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

jerry, what would you prefer to talk about? That vast quantity of empirical science that ID produces? Various ways The Darwin oppresses hapless unfunded ID researchers?David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

By God, is Mr. Bluesky/Greysky here to decipher Lewontin in an attempt to inoculate the legal defense from the obvious. Yes irony is appropriate because Darwinism is as much religion as any form of Christianity but has been irrationally protected by the courts. Justice Black is twisting and turning some place. Which is more irrational. the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, or the protection of Darwinism from this ruling?jerry_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Clearly Lewontin is using the word gospel with a measure of irony.David Kellogg_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

I quote from another blog - "Caught in the act! This is an important principle to understand about Darwinism, and why it has become so successful, and why it has taken over the intellectual world. It no longer matters whether a hypothesis is true or not, but only whether it keeps lazy scientists employed as storytellers. Evolutionary science has been liberated from repeatability, testability and observability. The key word is now plausibility, which being translated, means science has become fiction. After all, any good novel or short story is plausible, isn’t it? (Since there are no Laws of Plausibility, at least it will be plausible to somebody, especially the storyteller.) For Darwinists studying the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, to really do their job rigorously, they would have to identify every beneficial mutation or gene duplication, connect it to an actual functional advantage, and monitor its spread through a population. They would have to find every transitional fossil, know its date accurately, trace the development of all the flight-related hardware and software in the genes (including feathers, perching feet, hollow bones, avian lungs, specialized organs, modified brain, body size, metabolic rate, specialized muscles and tendons, and behavioral instincts, such as knowing how to take off and land and use thermals), explain how these morphological changes proceed from embryo to adult, and much more. Clearly, doing all this is impossible. Moreover, they would need to uncover, by experiment, new natural laws that create increasing levels of complexity and information against the inexorable pressure of entropy. Even if in some fantasyland they could perform these impossible experiments, they would never know if it matched prehistory without getting into a time machine and watching the whole story unfold. This is too hard, so evolutionists changed the rules. They don’t like doing science the old way, the way Joule and Faraday and Mendel did it. It’s so much easier to just flop on the sofa and speculate. When the NSF comes around and wonders how the grant money is being spent, the Darwinist can show the photo album from the last vacation in the Bahamas, or show a home-video clip of partridge chicks running up a ramp in the lab, or demonstrate the latest computer games enough to look busy. And so that Eugenie Scott can brag about all the scientific literature that supports evolution, the Darwinist can have his or her grad student write it up in specialized jargon for Nature or Science or National Geographic, ending with the typical benediction about all the wonderful stories that the latest new twist on the plot opens up." - and so hoodwinked book reviewers can make comments that reveal either profound stupidity or an agenda or an attempt to keep their job as well. The crap just keeps circling doesn't it!? How and what can be done to reset the agenda - the questions, the evidence - the scientific method? - to clarify I quote again - "Antievolutionists have been snookered into trying to prove that this or that alleged feathered dinosaur really isn’t an ancestor to birds, or that this or that microevolutionary change cannot be extrapolated endlessly, without realizing that they are trying to beat Hobbes at Calvinball. As long as the Darwinists are free to make up stories that can never be proved, it’s hopeless to call them on the carpet. The one who sets the rules controls the game. The reason Darwin Party members are so vehement against critics is that their jobs are at stake. " The public must be able to demand accountability - admittedly a very big job. Any suggestions?alan_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Could Lewontin's words be used to keep Darwin out of the curriculum. Something about "apostle" and "gospel" by a leading atheist might sound the alarm. Let's hear from our atheist friends and go for another 600 comments of inane discussion. Barry created withdrawal symptoms earlier today and here is a quick fix. What is the line from "Sound of Music," "If God closes a door, He always opens a window." So you atheists out there, God is just opened a window.jerry_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

I think the separation of church and state was a product of Hugo Black and his hatred for the Catholic Church. Black was an ex KKK clansman from Louisiana. The decision was in 1947 and involved bus transportation for Catholic school children. The decision was written to approve bus transportation but essentially eliminate everything else. This was one way to get back at Catholics who Black believed had too much power. This is the origin of Separation of Church and State. It erroneously thought to go back to Jefferson who used the phrase once in a letter but Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution and continued to support government financing of religion during his presidency. The whole idea of Separation of Church and State is bad law. After bus decision the government continued to give money to Veterans who could use it to attend any university they wanted to or become a minister, priest or rabbi if they chose and some did. And Christmas is a national holiday.jerry_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

I wonder what Darwin would predict about the fate of newspapers.tribune7_{May 13, 2009
May
05
May
13
13
2009
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply