Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Signature in the Cell: Darwinist demands to rewrite product copy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But why should that be a surprise? Of course, Darwinists don’t want anyone to read Signature in the Cell. Darwinism is a tax-funded origins cult, especially noxious in countries like the United States and Canada, which do not have and – for good reasons* – do not want established religions.

Yes, I have in my files a recent brownbagged letter, written to Amazon by a Darwinist, demanding that the editorial description of Signature be altered to reflect Darwinist bias.

Some useless flunky actually assured the Darwinist that these changes would indeed be made.

When I protested, I received an insulting e-mail assuring me that the ‘Zon guys understand that I might be upset, but that Amazon does not “support or promote hatred or criminal acts.”

Upset? That doesn’t cover the half of it.

I am a Canadian free speech journalist. A minor one to be sure but we have been kicking butt up and down the country with benighted sons of ditches like him, and their arrogant bosses.

I have had a good relationship with the ‘Zon over the years, and sold many books for them. But … if they cave to some aggrieved Darwin scammer – just another tax burden, really – I am transferring all my business to Barnes & Noble, and I recommend that all good citizens do the same.

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with me about Darwinism. Why on earth should these people have dictatorial rights over a private company’s business?

Oh wait, if you are a Darwinist, maybe you know that you are right, and you should rule, and that no one must be permitted to simply publish a book showing that your theories are inadequate to nature, without your interference.

Well then, the remaining good citizens must step into the breach.

*For one thing, countries tend to be more religious when the government avoids meddling. That’s why religious people here want the government out of religion. Except for Darwinists, who need to impose their unbelievable beliefs by law.

Anika Smith at the Discovery Institute also advises me that Meyer is World Magazine’s Daniel of the Year. I’m not sure how helpful that is. Basically, Darwinism is wrong no matter what one’s religion, unless it is atheistic materialism – in which case Darwinism is the only game in town, and tax-funded to boot. But re Daniels, I submit to more experienced judgement.

Also, from Evolution News and Views:

The continued success of Signature In The Cell has driven Darwinists crazy. They’re desperately making louder and ever more ridiculous denunciations of the book and anyone who might have the temerity to suggest people read it for themselves.

An interesting and informative back and forth has been taking place on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, where last month noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recommended SITC as one of the best books of the year. Not surprisingly, he was attacked (he responded, and he was attacked again) by a Darwinist who told people forgo reading SITC and instead just read Wikipedia. Is this what passes for civil discourse on important topics now? Just ignore the arguments you don’t like? A pretty pathetic state of affairs if true.

Go here for the rest and for the links.

Never mind what you think of Darwinism. If you think that ‘crats are not smart enough to run your life and do all your thinking for you – join the revolution now.

Go here for intellectual freedom news from Canada.

Comments
Zachriel,
If your point is that miracles can conceivably occur, then okay. But if we observe an unexplained irregularity, then the scientific answer is we don’t know. *Poof* is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
This from the same Zachriel who argued against StephenB and the law of causality by asserting that quantum particles "poof" into existence without a cause. That's consistent. (sarcasm)Clive Hayden
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 126: I am astounded that you cannot see the point of the alien sculpture example. The point is simple: we can be certain that the sculpture is an artifact produced by intelligent design, not a product of chance collisions, natural processes such as erosion, etc. It does not matter if don't have a clue who carved it, what technology was used to carve it, what the purpose of the sculpture is, etc. We can be sure that it was the product of design, not necessity and chance alone. If there was not a single trace of intelligent life anywhere in the universe, and all we had to go on was that one sculpture, we could infer the existence of intelligent life from that one sculpture alone. If I were to argue that the sculpture was carved out by erosion, lightning, etc., you would think me a fool -- and rightly so. And if you asked my reason, and I said that my reason was that I was unwilling to allow that there might be intelligent designers (other than human beings) anywhere in the universe, and therefore the sculpture *must* have been carved by natural forces and chance, and that it is the job of science to determine *how* natural forces and chance did it, not *whether* natural forces and chance did it, you would think I was dogmatic and not open to the evidence for a designer. Yet this is exactly what neo-Darwinians do when they can come up with only the most strained, stretched, forced and improbably explanations for the eye, the cardiovascular system, etc. They are determined that there shall not be a design explanation, and that there shall be only a "chance and natural laws" explanation. They could see the ludicrousness of the metaphysical bias in the Martian sculpture example, but they can't see it when it comes to their own favoured theory. Regarding the bones in the inner ear -- and by the way, I hope you aren't under the illusion that in employing these standard examples you are informing us for the first time about the evidence for evolution; most of us here could recite such examples chapter and verse without your help -- you are making an argument from homology to history, i.e., you are assuming from similarity of form and number of bones that there is a historical progression. It does not follow logically; there might be alternate developmental patterns based on common design elements that do not require recourse to historical transformation. It is logically conceivable that each alleged historical stage was a special creation employing a certain variation on the possible developmental patterns for the bones. Thus, only if you have ruled out design in advance is the argument from homology decisive. Otherwise, it is just one explanatory option, special creation of each different variation being another. And, lest you should jump all over this last response, remember -- I am making only a *logical* point about special creation. My position does not in fact require special creation. Indeed, I am not attacking "evolution" as such. I am attacking only the idea that evolution could have been entirely unguided and/or unplanned. So I am not against the idea that the bones of the reptilian jaw became inner ear bones. I am against the idea that this could have happened by plain dumb luck -- even dumb luck aided and abetted by natural selection. Clearly, if this transformation happened, there was a "set-up" of some kind, in which the developmental processes which produced jaw bones were made "switchable" to produce other coherent sets of possibilities. How do we account for this set-up? The answer is, of course, design. So we have three possibilities: 1. The homologies indicate an actual historical progression which was caused by blind natural laws and sheer chance. 2. The homologies indicate the use of common design elements, slightly varied each time, by an intelligent creator. 3. The homologies indicate an evolutionary process, but one guided or front-loaded by an intelligent creator. I regard both 2 and 3 as possible. I regard 1 as irrational and unsubstantiated by the evidence. If you reject my argument here, if you are holding out for position 1, you have an easy recourse -- simply show me how the transformation you are discussing could have occurred by chance. With the details. T.Timaeus
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 124: I've requested no "shielding" from your comments. If moderators are preventing your comments from coming through, I would hope that it is not to protect me from your arguments -- I fear none of them -- but because you have violated some rule of discourse established here, regarding language or ad hominem comments or false accusations against the Discovery Institute or the like. As long as you stay within the bounds of normal politeness and stay away from false accusations, I would like to get all your arguments, in their full force, as soon as you post them, without delays. But it's not up to me. I am not a moderator here. The moderators are authorized to make the call whether or not something should be posted, and I have to trust their judgment. All that I can do is try to respond to whatever gets through, and respond in good faith, trying to answer your questions. I hope you will do the same with mine. For example, I am still not satisfied that you have dealt with the epistemological question I posed. How can two propositions, one affirming the competence of random mutations and natural selection to build complex new machinery, and the other denying it, have different epistemological status, i.e., how can the affirmative be a scientific statement but the negative not be a scientific statement also? I cannot see any way to maintain such preferential distinctions. And that means that Behe's denials have the same status as Dawkins's affirmations, not necessarily regarding their truth but regarding their "scientific" character. If Darwinian theory is scientific, then the denial of Darwinian theory (in the terms I described) will be the same. Scour Behe's books and find me any spot where he relies upon a religious or theological premise to overturn one of Dawkins's scientific claims. You won't find one. His denial is cast in exactly the same language as Dawkins's affirmation. I didn't "reject" your proposal for a new thread. I'm not a columnist here -- I can't start new threads, at least, if by "thread" you mean a new topic with its own title. I can of course divide up our arguments into several different topics, and keep them in separate postings, and this I have offered to do. I think I have been very reasonable. Regarding the "strong consensus" of "the science community", you may not know every corner of "the science community" as well as you think you do, and there may be more dissent than you think. In fact, there is considerable dissent regarding Darwinism, and there always has been a strong minority voice against it, since Darwin's day; further, long before the ID movement of the current day got started, design ideas were "in the air" among serious thinkers about nature and even among the life scientists. But the pedagogical point to be made is that high school science teachers, the good ones, anyway (and keep in mind that I was educated in a different country, where the idea of "teaching" may be less mechanical than in the USA), often stimulate students by throwing in bits that are not strictly required by the curriculum, but which shed light on the nature of science, or on some frontier area of science which may in the long run prove important. Also, you fail to see that discussing ID could be very useful even if ID is regarded as complete non-science -- pointing out exactly *why* ID is non-science could help high school students better understand the nature of science. For example, the teacher could wax eloquent about the alleged failure of ID theorists to grasp "methodological naturalism", and turn this into a tidy little lesson on the role of methodological naturalism in modern science. So why wouldn't a good high school teacher seize on the opportunity of an event in the news which has already caught some of his students' attention (e.g., the Dover Trial), to illuminate the nature of science? That is exactly what a sharp, on-the-bit, non-mechanical, non-drone science teacher would do. But maybe you never had any high school science teachers who were that pedagogically alert. It may well be that many people who would like to see ID in the schools are animated by non-permissible motives. What of it? If there are cases where there are no such motives, where ID is discussed out of the pure love of knowing the truth about nature, those are the cases I am interested in. Those are the cases where I see no harm in teaching ID. I'm not defending the teaching of ID as a sly way of slipping six-day literalism or Protestant theology into a science classroom. People who want to teach such things should do it after school hours, in voluntary religion classes, or in parochial schools. But pointing out the incredible orderliness of the living cell, or pointing out the astronomically low odds of a shrew-like animal accidentally turning into a bat, has nothing to do with six-day creationism or Protestant theology. In your complaint against one book (Of Pandas and People) that was referenced (not even used, but merely referenced) by one school board, you overlook the fact that "intelligent design" in lower-case letters long preceded "ID" in upper-case letters. In fact, ancient Greeks were proposing "intelligent design", and opposing it to ancient proto-Darwinian theories, long before any Greek knew anything about the Bible, which proves that Christian religion need not be the motivation for such arguments. I don't see why a non-fundamentalist, thoughtful science teacher in Cleveland should be prevented from raising some difficulties with Darwinism simply because some fundamentalists in Dover had the wrong motivations. As for your claims at the end about how evolution works, I would welcome a separate post from you, focusing exclusively on that subject, with some of the details that I have asked for, and that you have not yet provided. If you write such a post, I will stay entirely on topic in my reply to it, and will not wander into constitutional or pedagogical questions. So the ball is in your court. T.Timaeus
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
If your point is that miracles can conceivably occur, then okay. But if we observe an unexplained irregularity, then the scientific answer is we don’t know. *Poof* is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
What Barry quoted from Chesterton 8)Clive Hayden
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
Cabal. Read Chesterton again, and perhaps you will understand what he is saying. Your comment betrays the fact that you do not. He says nothing about “possible” and “impossible.” In philosophy speak he is talking about the difference between “necessary” and “contingent” and how we should not confuse the latter with the former.Barry Arrington
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
So even the emergent collective properties of matter are just descriptions? Quantum mechanics and the apparent randomness of radioactive decay just description? If anything is possible then nothing is impossible. In that case, evolution is possible along with Intelligent Design or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I am no philosopher; I just wonder if Immanuel Kant would agree. We do not live in a rational universe; astrology is science and magic is a reality. Or not?Cabal
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Zachriel, if only you could understand The Ethics of Elfland (Chesterton). Here's a sample: BEGIN QUOTE: “There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one thing following another), which are, in the true sense of the word, reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. . . . But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened — dawn and death and so on — as if THEY were rational and inevitable. They talked as if the fact that trees bear fruit were just as NECESSARY as the fact that two and one trees make three. But it is not. . . . they could not be got to see the distinction between a true law, a law of reason, and the mere fact of apples falling. If the apple hit Newton’s nose, Newton’s nose hit the apple. That is a true necessity: because we cannot conceive the one occurring without the other. But we can quite well conceive the apple not falling on his nose; we can fancy it flying ardently through the air to hit some other nose, of which it had a more definite dislike. We have always in our fairy tales kept this sharp distinction between the science of mental relations, in which there really are laws, and the science of physical facts, in which there are no laws, but only weird repetitions . . . When we are asked why eggs turn to birds or fruits fall in autumn, we must answer exactly as the fairy godmother would answer if Cinderella asked her why mice turned to horses or her clothes fell from her at twelve o’clock. We must answer that it is MAGIC. . . . All the terms used in the science books, “law,” “necessity,” “order,” “tendency,” and so on, are really unintellectual, because they assume an inner synthesis, which we do not possess. The only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, “charm,” “spell,” “enchantment.” They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a MAGIC tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. . . .” END QUOTEBarry Arrington
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: My point is that description of nature never amounts to an argument against proscription of nature.
It seems you would be arguing the converse, that one seeming generality doesn't impose restraints on all of nature. Science is its own paradigm, and its claims are subject to verification through scientific methodology. Perhaps the world is not what it seems, or it may change tomorrow, or it was created Last Tuesday. But science is as science does. If your point is that miracles can conceivably occur, then okay. But if we observe an unexplained irregularity, then the scientific answer is we don't know. *Poof* is not a valid scientific hypothesis.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
This didn’t seem to be your earlier point. You’re just pointing to the problem of induction, but scientific claims still stand (or fall) because induction is encompassed in the methodology.
My point is that description of nature never amounts to an argument against proscription of nature. This is the point, and it is a philosophical position that Darwin and you have that you even understand, as explanations, a description, and think that you can therefore provide against other explanations, when you cannot, for you do not possess a knowledge, based on reason, between the descriptions, only that there are descriptions (which doesn't amount to an explanation). In reality there could or could not be extraneous entities behind every force, but we could never know one way or the other by studying an effect or describing the force's effect. You cannot answer the why question, so you cannot answer the why not question.Clive Hayden
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: ... all we can say of these observations is that they have been observed and have certain descriptions ...
Not quite. We can make and test predictions based on the hypothesis.
Clive Hayden: It cannot rule out other forces, for there is no rule that it adheres to logically.
This didn't seem to be your earlier point. You're just pointing to the problem of induction, but scientific claims still stand (or fall) because induction is encompassed in the methodology.
Timaeus: I see no evidence that lightning is guided. Its behaviour can be explained fully without reference to any redundant hypothesis of guidance.
Notice that Timaeus doesn't invoke extraneous entities to explain lightning, though your argument could just as easily apply to that.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
If we consider Newtonian gravity, it’s just a name for the force, a simple inverse-square rule. It replaced the previous notion of angels making complex and continuous adjustments to the crystal spheres. It’s considered scientific because it makes specific predictions of empirical phenomena and unifies observations of the celestial and the terrestrial.
Of course, of course, however, these are only descriptions of a force or what we call a law or rule of nature, the description doesn't amount to an explanation, and since we have no knowledge in the way of explanations as we perceive the reasonableness of the laws of logic and reason, all we can say of these observations is that they have been observed and have certain descriptions, but we do not understand them as explanations. It doesn't matter what example you give me, Newtonian or otherwise, we rely on a philosophy that what we observe is all that there is and that it is regular and lawlike, but not based on a real law, like the law of non contradiction, but only based on repeated behavior, but behavior doesn't amount to a law by being regular. This is what I think you're missing the point on, empiricism is an observation of descriptions, not an explanation of knowledge. It cannot rule out other forces, for there is no rule that it adheres to logically.Clive Hayden
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Timaeus: I am not sure who here has ever insisted that biology should be explained by “unspecified forces acting in an unspecified manner”. Nothing in ID requires any such hypothesis. ID is about design detection, not about hypothetical forces.
Something has to implement the design, so it certainly entails a mechanism. Of course, that mechanism may not be immediately known or testable.
Timaeus: ID claims that design in living systems is detectable. ID claims that neither the origin of life nor any major evolutionary changes in life can be explained without reference to some design in nature, whether immanent or imposed by some intelligent agent. It is not necessary to specify any particular force to make this argument.
Lack of a valid mechanism is a problem that can't be overlooked. That doesn't mean some progress can't be made otherwise, but the attitude that it's not a problem reflects poorly on the whole enterprise.
Timaeus: For example, if I find an alien sculpture on Mars, I can be certain it is designed even if I cannot comprehend the advanced technology which carved it out of the rock. I can be sure that it wasn’t carved out by lightning or erosion.
What? A sculpture of a bipedal, large-brained organism with a chisel held with an opposable thumb? All such inferences are made through comparison to known artifacts. Even then, they are subject to additional hypothesis-testing.
Timaeus: Design, however, is intrinsically plausible as a source of order ...
Designed objects are manufactured. There is a link of causation between the artifact, the art and the artisan. Entailment.
Timaeus: Darwinism cannot account for, i.e., the co-ordinated development of overlapping and mutually reinforcing systems, inexplicable on the hypothesis of scattergun mutations.
There are more sources of variation than simple mutation. And we can observe the process at work, at many time-scales. Try a close study of the evolution of the mammalian middle ear. Bones in the reptilian jaw are coopted in stages and optimized so that they no longer resemble jaw bones at all, but have become closely matched, forming a very sensitive amplifier. Each step is an incremental improvement in function with a clear benefit to the organism. And the final result is irreducibly complex. (Interestingly, the embryonic data predicted the fossils decades before their discovery.)
Timaeus: If you are looking for a causal account of how the design is embodied in nature, ID cannot supply that.
You might try to work on that. Let us know what you discover.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: As already said, no force is specified as an explanation, only by description, but that is not an explanation against other forces.
If we consider Newtonian gravity, it's just a name for the force, a simple inverse-square rule. It replaced the previous notion of angels making complex and continuous adjustments to the crystal spheres. It's considered scientific because it makes specific predictions of empirical phenomena and unifies observations of the celestial and the terrestrial. Unlike gravity, *poof* doesn't have entailed predictions: It can mean anything. That's what most people consider a miracle, a violation of the normal course of natural events.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Timaeus: I am not interested in getting caught in procedural wrangles ...
Must be nice. Everything is procedural for those of us with the contrary position. Zachriel's comments are delayed for indeterminate periods (up to 2-3 Jovians days have been recorded), and are sometimes deleted entirely without warning.
Timaeus: If you are going to continue to dodge questions ...
Consider again—remembering that you are shielded by moderation from answers someone has decided might be uncomfortable for you.
Timaeus: I give you complete freedom to answer the various questions in any order you like, in one long omnibus post or in several separate posts, and I am willing to reply in whatever format you wish, omnibus or separate posts for separate questions.
You say "whatever format," but when a separate thread for the science discussion was proposed, you rejected that reasonable suggestion.
Timaeus: 2. The second discussion on the table concerns the constitutionality and/or pedagogical appropriateness of teaching ID in science classrooms.
You were provided a detailed response to your concerns about education on 1/6/2010, but that was deleted by the moderator. We will make another attempt.
Timaeus: I would be interested in a clear statement from you whether a brief classroom discussion of Behe etc. — *in the form I gave, i.e., without proselytization* — would be in your view (a) unconstitutional; (b) inconsistent with the purposes of a science course.
The strong consensus of the scientific community is that Intelligent Design has no scientific validity. Hence, it does not belong in the science classroom. A child's classroom is not the proper forum for resolving any such dispute. The last time ID went to court in the United States, it was shown that the 'Christian' plantiffs lied repeatedly, ID was found to be a subterfuge to promote religion in the public schools—being just repackaged Creationism, a.k.a. cdesign proponentsists. You will maintain that ID can be properly sanitized, drained of the Life's Blood of the Spirit, but the very fact that it is so important to so many to introduce a sliver of ID into children's classrooms implies the strong possibility of non-permissible motives.
Timaeus: as far as I can make it out, is that ID is either lousy science or non-science (you haven’t clarified which, even though I asked)
Because Intelligent Design is based on equivocation, it's both.
Timaeus: I have not heard, however, two things yet: (i) How you can justify forcing the students hear Dawkins assert A while denying the pedagogical usefulness of their hearing Behe assert not-A;
Because Behe's arguments are specious.
Timaeus: Whether you would go so far as to take legal action or other intervention should some teacher in your local school district teach a lesson of the sort I described.
Only interested parties can take legal action, and it would depend on the particular circumstances. But legal action to prevent falsely teaching children that Intelligent Design has scientific validity is obviously an option for the communities involved.
Timaeus: 1. Can you explain the transition from shrew-like animal to bat, fin to foot, light-sensitive spot to camera eye, etc.
It depends on the evidence for Common Descent, which is found primarily in the nested hierarchies of phenomics, genomics, embryonics, and the geological succession. Once we look at the historical pattern, it is quite easy to determine that life diversified from common ancestors through a process of descent with modification.Zachriel
January 9, 2010
January
01
Jan
9
09
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
Clive Hayden: I have not the faintest idea what you mean by “poof”, which I’ve already asked if you expected that to have any meaning to me. Zachriel: As already said, it’s an unspecified force acting in an unspecified manner.
As already said, no force is specified as an explanation, only by description, but that is not an explanation against other forces.Clive Hayden
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Zachriel, at 117, wrote: "The scientific prejudice is against a claim of unspecified forces acting in an unspecified manner. Such a hypothesis has no clear and distinguishing empirical entailments." I am not sure who here has ever insisted that biology should be explained by "unspecified forces acting in an unspecified manner". Nothing in ID requires any such hypothesis. ID is about design detection, not about hypothetical forces. ID claims that design in living systems is detectable. ID claims that neither the origin of life nor any major evolutionary changes in life can be explained without reference to some design in nature, whether immanent or imposed by some intelligent agent. It is not necessary to specify any particular force to make this argument. For example, if I find an alien sculpture on Mars, I can be certain it is designed even if I cannot comprehend the advanced technology which carved it out of the rock. I can be sure that it wasn't carved out by lightning or erosion. If ID is correct, neo-Darwinism offers the equivalent of a sculpture's being carved out by lightning or erosion, and is just as implausible. Design, however, is intrinsically plausible as a source of order (we know there is at least one designing intelligence in the universe -- our own, and if there is one, there may be others), and design accounts for facts that neo-Darwinism cannot account for, i.e., the co-ordinated development of overlapping and mutually reinforcing systems, inexplicable on the hypothesis of scattergun mutations. If you are looking for a causal account of how the design is embodied in nature, ID cannot supply that. But a refutation of neo-Darwinism is a pretty significant achievement by itself, and therefore worthy of scientific attention even if no adequate causal account for the insertion of design can be found. Better for us to know that neo-Darwinism is hopelessly flawed, even without having an alternative account of origins, than to continue to believe in that flawed account. T.Timaeus
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 118: I am not interested in getting caught in procedural wrangles, i.e., about what the topic originally was and whether or not it has changed and so on. I am interested in discussing contents. If you are going to continue to dodge questions of content by pleading that you aren't getting the questions in quite the context or quite the order you'd like them, I see very little point in continuing the discussion. I give you complete freedom to answer the various questions in any order you like, in one long omnibus post or in several separate posts, and I am willing to reply in whatever format you wish, omnibus or separate posts for separate questions. But if you are not going to answer the questions, just say so and we can discontinue. On the table are two discussions: 1. Can you explain the transition from shrew-like animal to bat, fin to foot, light-sensitive spot to camera eye, etc. -- in any detail? (Generalized references to "drift", "adaptation", "mutation", "selection" etc. don't count as detail. "Detail" means references to specific alterations in identified sectors of the genome, associated alterations in the developmental plan, etc. What alterations does it take to engineer a fin into a foot, to engineer a sonar system out of nothing, to engineer an eye from a sheet of light-sensitive tissue? How are alterations saved, if they are not immediately useful? How is cross-interference from undesirable alterations overcome? Etc.) Either you can personally explain these transitions, or you can't. Either you know of books and articles where these transitions are explained, or you don't. It's a question of stating what you know, or admitting what you don't know. 2. The second discussion on the table concerns the constitutionality and/or pedagogical appropriateness of teaching ID in science classrooms. (Note that I am not talking about mandating ID in the curriculum, but only about employing it on a voluntary basis if a teacher thinks it would be useful to further valid educational goals.) I believe that you have already conceded that mentioning the historical role of earlier versions of ID (e.g., Paley) is legitimate in introducing a unit on Darwin -- legitimate in the sense of "not unconstitutional" and legitimate in the sense of "pedagogically sensible". So what we are disputing is whether introducing modern versions of ID, post-Darwinian versions, which make use of science which Paley had no access to, are legitimate constitutionally and pedagogically. I would be interested in a clear statement from you whether a brief classroom discussion of Behe etc. -- *in the form I gave, i.e., without proselytization* -- would be in your view (a) unconstitutional; (b) inconsistent with the purposes of a science course. I have not heard your answer to (a). Your answer to (b), as far as I can make it out, is that ID is either lousy science or non-science (you haven't clarified which, even though I asked) and therefore would be of no benefit to discuss at any point in the evolution unit. I have not heard, however, two things yet: (i) How you can justify forcing the students hear Dawkins assert A while denying the pedagogical usefulness of their hearing Behe assert not-A; (ii) Whether you would go so far as to take legal action or other intervention should some teacher in your local school district teach a lesson of the sort I described. Those are, as I see it, the questions on the floor. I would be interested in your answers to them, in one post or in several, divided up into as many sub-topics as you find necessary. T.Timaeus
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: I’m glad you admit the philosophical prejudice, which is not scientific, but philosophical. And it’s not a hypothesis.
To be called science, claims have to be subject to empirical verification. It's the definition.
Clive Hayden: If science can observe and catalogue the exceptions, (which is impossible with what occurred in the past, before science) ...
Claims about the past are verified just like any other claims—through observations.
Clive Hayden: ... then it is not an unspecified force nor unspecified manner by your methodology.
A scientific claim has to entail specific and distinguishing empirical implications. Even those having to do with history.
Clive Hayden: I have not the faintest idea what you mean by “poof”, which I’ve already asked if you expected that to have any meaning to me.
As already said, it's an unspecified force acting in an unspecified manner.Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
The scientific prejudice is against a claim of unspecified forces acting in an unspecified manner. Such a hypothesis has no clear and distinguishing empirical entailments. (This doesn’t require the invocation of Methodological Naturalism, though that is clearly the prevailing heuristic at the time.)
I'm glad you admit the philosophical prejudice, which is not scientific, but philosophical. And it's not a hypothesis.
Clive Hayden: Until we can have knowledge of the inner synthesis of nature, as a rule, which we do not possess, we cannot disregard the exception to the rule.
Zachriel: Science can observe and catalogue the exceptions. So no one is disregarding anything.
If science can observe and catalogue the exceptions, (which is impossible with what occurred in the past, before science) then it is not an unspecified force nor unspecified manner by your methodology. But in reality, all forces remain unspecified as an explanation, all that is specified is the description that it entails. I have not the faintest idea what you mean by "poof", which I've already asked if you expected that to have any meaning to me.Clive Hayden
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
Timaeus: Just as an aside, I’m curious how you established the “fact” that hummingbirds and humans have a common ancestor, without first verifying the capability of Darwinian (or any other) mechanisms to achieve this miracle of diversification.
So it is an aside to the discussion, and not something avoided. Valid cites to authority are entirely appropriate for determining what is reasonable to teach to childen in science classrooms. You might object and say that Intelligent Design has merit, but the proper forum for that is not a child's classroom. We can have a discussion about evolutionary mechanisms, but it would be best to do so without interspersing it with the discussion on children’s education, as there are significantly different standards of argument. Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden: Who is “He”?
See Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th Edition, Pg 204. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=image&itemID=F391&pageseq=232
Clive Hayden: You may have a philosophical prejudice against miracles because of a prior commitment to methodological naturalism, but that is a philosophy, one that is not, itself, evidenced by anything natural or physical.
The scientific prejudice is against a claim of unspecified forces acting in an unspecified manner. Such a hypothesis has no clear and distinguishing empirical entailments. (This doesn't require the invocation of Methodological Naturalism, though that is clearly the prevailing heuristic at the time.)
Clive Hayden: Until we can have knowledge of the inner synthesis of nature, as a rule, which we do not possess, we cannot disregard the exception to the rule.
Science can observe and catalogue the exceptions. So no one is disregarding anything. It's the *claim* of a miracle (meaning here an unspecified force acting in an unspecified manner) that has no scientific content, because it doesn't entail clear and distinguishing empirical predictions. *Poof* is scientifically empty.Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.
Who is "He"? And what is he admitting? You may have a philosophical prejudice against miracles because of a prior commitment to methodological naturalism, but that is a philosophy, one that is not, itself, evidenced by anything natural or physical. If you think the natural world ordinary and working in a way that we have an explanation of, not just a description of, then you're mistaken, nature doesn't provide real explanations of itself, we can only collect descriptions, and no matter how many we collect, they do not add up to an explanation. Until we can have knowledge of the inner synthesis of nature, as a rule, which we do not possess, we cannot disregard the exception to the rule. This is the problem with methodological naturalism, it assumes an answer when it has only a list of neutral particulars that do not add up to an answer. If we do not understand the rule, we cannot rule out the exception. Descriptions of nature never amount to arguments for or against proscriptions of nature. Let that sink in. And when that is understood, we understand that Darwin continually made religiously (atheistically) motivated arguments. If you think this perfectly fine for the classroom, I submit it is only because you do not understand the real implications, probably because you are yourself committed to the same logical fallacy as Darwin.
It’s a simple statement of methodological naturalism (which long predates Darwin, and is clearly assumed to be already accepted by his scientific audience). Just saying *poof* is not sufficient to constitute a scientific explanation
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean here by poof. Is poof supposed to mean something to me?Clive Hayden
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
Zachriel @ 113: You have a short memory. Please see our discussion at 39, 40, 41, and the fourth and fifth paragraphs of 59. Also have a look at my discussion with Nakashima, which has been at points been intertwined with my discussion with you. My discussion was not limited primarily to questions of schools, and initially focused more on the question of detailed evolutionary mechanisms, and the lack thereof. You have tactically avoided this part of my discussion. The most logical inference is that you cannot supply the mechanisms. This is exactly what I expected. I have never met a Darwinian who can do so. You also seem to confuse two points: (1) whether it would be *constitutional* to discuss ID in a science class, as historical, philosophical, and methodological framing to contemporary evolutionary theory; (2) whether ID counts as good science, bad science, or non-science. The second question is irrelevant to the first. A science teacher could, for example, take ten minutes to discuss the American revolution in biology class. Would that be unconstitutional to do in a science class? No, of course not. But it would be irrelevant to a science class, and therefore no teacher would do it. But if a science teacher were to say: "There is this guy named Behe, who disagrees with Dawkins, and these are his three arguments against Darwinian mechanisms ..." that would not be irrelevant to science class. So unless you think it is unconstitutional, on what basis would you deny the science teacher the professional freedom to introduce the students to ID thought? (Assuming that you would do so, i.e., assuming that, if you were a parent, and heard about such a teacher, you would launch an objection to such a lesson.) Would your protest be that ID is non-science? Or that that it's bad science? (It can't be both.) If you think it's bad science, then you have to show why it's bad. I haven't seen this done -- and I've read virtually every published scientific reply to Behe and all his rejoinders. On the other hand, if you think it's non-science, you again have to explain why. Last I heard, arguments (1) which are couched entirely in terms of molecular structures and probability theory (2) which make absolutely no reference to God or religion, (3) which cite peer-reviewed literature to make their points (4)which are offered by a Ph.D. with 35 peer-reviewed publications in his field -- count as science. The onus is on you to show, with reference to specific passages from Behe's writings, their non-scientific character. If you can do this, let's hear it. If not, you should withdraw your claim. I note that you have evaded several points in several of my posts, including my argument about the parallel epistemological status of statements of "A" (Dawkins) and "not-A" (Behe). Since you have trouble with this, let me spell it out for you: Dawkins says that random mutations plus natural selection, utterly unguided by intelligence, are capable of building complex new molecular machinery. According to you, this is a scientific claim. Behe says that there is no evidence that random mutations plus natural selection can build very much complex new molecular machinery. You imply that this is not a scientific claim. Such a position is incoherent. Dawkins may be right and Behe wrong, but Behe's statement of his position is every bit as scientific as Dawkins's is. And scientists often conduct debates of exactly this form, i.e., one scientist asserts that mechanisms X, Y and Z, have produced A, and another scientist asserts that the proposed mechanisms are insufficient to have produced A. The scientific community then examines the claim and the counterclaim, and determines, if it can, who is right. If you are not familiar with this sort of debate, I am wondering what sort of scientific training that you have. Just as an aside, I'm curious how you established the "fact" that hummingbirds and humans have a common ancestor, without first verifying the capability of Darwinian (or any other) mechanisms to achieve this miracle of diversification. If you cannot prove that a mechanism capable of doing this exists, how can you be sure of the fact? I could tell you that I flew to Mars and back last night, and that this "fact" proves that human interplanetary travel is possible. But you would not accept my flight to Mars as "fact" until I showed you my space ship. Show me your space ship, please. There is much more that I could say, but I will stop here. My general complaint at this point is that, after what appeared to be a pleasant willingness to engage, you seem now to be evading and giving excuses for evasion, and ducking for cover behind authority. (Whatever most scientists say is right, according to you. A very sound principle, to be sure. Ever heard of "ether"? "phlogiston"? "alchemy?") If there are detailed mechanisms explaining the origin of organs, organelles, systems and organisms, please give them to us on your own authority (if you have discovered these mechanisms as part of your own original scientific research but have not yet published them), or on the authority of others (if you can cite books and journal articles which provide these mechanisms, rather than the usual generalities, speculations and literature bluffs which are standard among Darwinian evolutionary biologists). And if you cannot provide either your own account of someone else's, please have the decency to admit that Darwinian evolution is nowhere near to proving the adequacy of its proposed mechanisms. (And what applies to Darwinian evolution applies, mutatis mutandis, to all current theories of evolution taught by evolutionary biologists.) T.Timaeus
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
This helps clarify your position.
Clive Hayden: But it was in opposition to creation, miracles, etc., which are religious arguments, not scientific. If the argument can be made against Creation Science in a classroom, then so can the argument for it be made in a classroom. Is this what you mean to say?
Most introductory biology classes do not delve into the arguments in Origin of Species. That is typically reserved for the history of science. To reiterate, Origin of Species is not a textbook, and extensive quotes or arguments are rarely made. So, it's irrelevant to the question of education. On the more general point, a perusal of most of these references simply concern the metaphysics of appeal to unevidenced miracles to explain the unexplained.
He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science.
It's a simple statement of methodological naturalism (which long predates Darwin, and is clearly assumed to be already accepted by his scientific audience). Just saying *poof* is not sufficient to constitute a scientific explanation. Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Timaeus: Your economical post hits the nail right on the head.
That is incorrect. Your questions concerned not the evidence for evolutionary theory, but whether Intelligent Design should be taught to children in public schools as science. When Intelligent Design 'Researchers' convince their peers of the validity of their position, then we can revisit this question.
Timaeus: I accept macroevolution as a “working hypothesis”, as a plausible explanation of the fossil record and of some genetic data.
If you understand the evidence and are convinced of Common Descent, then you should make every attempt to convince your peers. The fact that hummingbirds and humans share a common ancestor is one of the most important and explanatory facts in all of biology.Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
StephenB: Arguments from authority do not resonate well with most ID advocates.
Arguments to valid authority are entirely appropriate when discussing what should be taught to children.
StephenB: A more thoughtful answer to Timaeus’ question take on a structure such as the following: [a] Unguided “macro evolution,” that is, macro evolution driven solely by an unprogrammed, naturlistic forces, could occur by the following process………..”
Actually, it would not. The equivalent answer for this discussion would be "the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations in the relevant fields agree that the Theory of Evolution is strongly supported and Intelligent Design is not." We would be happy to engage a discussion as to why scientists believe the Theory of Evolution is strongly supported, but previous attempts have been fruitless. For instance, in the latest discussion (Whale Evolution Darwinist ‘Trawlers’ Have Every Reason To Be Concerned), it can't even be agreed whether sparrows group best with eagles or with toads. This does illustrate how little Intelligent Design Advocates really care about the messy details of living things, though. Meanwhile, actual scientists will spend years testing their hypotheses, even if it means launching an expedition to the arctic tundra, or politically unstable regions.Zachriel
January 8, 2010
January
01
Jan
8
08
2010
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Dear HouseStreetRoom @ 104: Thanks for your encouraging words. All the regulars here have been very supportive of me. I'd like to offer my thanks to all. StephenB @ 110: Your economical post hits the nail right on the head. Yes, that's what I'd like to see from Zachriel, Nakashima, Dr. MacNeill, Mark Frank, or any of the other Darwinians who post here. And if I may make a comment to no one in particular, or to everyone, I'm not personally hostile to the Darwinians who post here. In fact, I admire their courage for posting in what probably seems to them as hostile territory, and territory where they are decisively outnumbered. I hope that I'm being personally polite to them even if I'm giving no quarter intellectually, because I wouldn't want to drive them away. We IDers need constant opposition and criticism to sharpen our arguments. Also we need to make it clear to the Darwinists that not *all* ID proponents are against evolution *per se*. Many ID proponents are opposed only to totally undirected and unplanned notions of evolution. In fact, on this list, I suspect that a substantial minority of the pro-ID posters accepts a significant amount of macroevolution. The Darwinian critics here often don't take that into account. They sometimes write as if this is a place where everyone holds to a literal version of Genesis, and therefore needs to be educated about the age of the earth and transitional fossils. In fact, ID is all over the map on the amount of macroevolution that has occurred, and allows for various combinations of causes (intelligence, chance, natural laws) as drivers of micro and/or macroevolution. The Darwinians have to stop assuming that every one of us rejects evolution out of hand, or that every one of us denies the possibility of finding "missing links". the issue is not whether or not there are links; the issue is what drives the change. If chance and natural laws alone can't do it, then how can evolutionary biology rule out design? I accept macroevolution as a "working hypothesis", as a plausible explanation of the fossil record and of some genetic data. I don't regard it as an unshakeable truth about nature, but I'm willing to treat it as "fact" for the sake of argument, so that I can go on with the question: what causes this purported fact? What natural causes known to us could produce such an effect? And I find no convincing set of causes, other than the vaguest set of general notions (mutation, drift, selection, etc.). I am looking for the level of causal specificity that one finds in physics, chemistry and engineering, and for that matter in experimental biology. I don't find it in evolutionary biology. Until I do, the most charitable thing I can say about macroevolution is that it may well have happened, but if it did, we don't know why, and that it is dishonest for anyone to say that "science" can say why. T.Timaeus
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
---Zackriel: "The vast majority of scientists in the relevant fields strongly disagree." Arguments from authority do not resonate well with most ID advocates. A more thoughtful answer to Timaeus' question take on a structure such as the following: [a] Unguided "macro evolution," that is, macro evolution driven solely by an unprogrammed, naturlistic forces, could occur by the following process..........." or, [b]"I have no idea how naturalistic forces could drive macro evolution and neither does anyone that I read, nevertheless I accept the possibility as an act of faith."StephenB
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Zachriel,
It does involve a discussion of prevailing Creation Science views of the time, mostly in opposition. Those aspects of interest to the study of science are secular.
But it was in opposition to creation, miracles, etc., which are religious arguments, not scientific. If the argument can be made against Creation Science in a classroom, then so can the argument for it be made in a classroom. Is this what you mean to say?Clive Hayden
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB, Halik does not quote Nevin on this issue. He does say that Mother Agnes (Therese's sister Pauline) interpreted it this way, and Halik is critical of this interpretation. Halik seems to think that Therese's experience was different from what John of the Cross described, and this difference is part of the reason she is a doctor of the Church. Halik sees a deep lesson in accepting atheism in Therese's experience.Nakashima
January 7, 2010
January
01
Jan
7
07
2010
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply