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,
Origin of Species should be studied for its importance to history. However, the specifics of evolutionary theory have changed considerably since then, so a study of biology would only reference those aspects of Darwin’s work that have survived the test of time.
If you mean excising and expurgating The Origin of Species with all of its 70+ references to creation and miracles and religion, and further excising bad science like the discarded notions such as gemmules, and leaving whatever has "stood the test of time" to be taught in a history class or as history within a science class then I agree with you. But, that's not The Origin of Species anymore.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
though in a science class, it would be Darwin’s scientific influence that would be of primary interest. You would think that in a high school science class, the subject wouldn't involve teaching about the influence of particular philosopher but in objective facts and learning the methods to find and take advantage of them. Anyway Mendel should have far, far more of an impact on the curriculum than Darwin.tribune7
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Zachriel: A secular education can certainly include the study of religion, though in a science class, it would be Darwin’s scientific influence that would be of primary interest. Clive Hayden: Agreed, but that’s not what you said, you said the book that he wrote should be studied.
Not sure of where you find the contradiction. Origin of Species should be studied for its importance to history. However, the specifics of evolutionary theory have changed considerably since then, so a study of biology would only reference those aspects of Darwin's work that have survived the test of time. (Usually, basic level classes mix a bit of history with the science to allow students to understand how progress is made. Astronomy 101 might mention the ancient Babylonians. More advanced science classes won't spend a lot of time on discarded theories, though history or philosophy classes might.)Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Let me emphasize the preceding comment. A quality secular education requires understanding various religions, their history, and their influence on the world today. A quality education in biology requires understanding the Theory of Evolution, including what is known of life's long and storied history.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
A secular education can certainly include the study of religion, though in a science class, it would be Darwin’s scientific influence that would be of primary interest.
Agreed, but that's not what you said, you said the book that he wrote should be studied.Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden: You have a very odd view of what constitutes a secular work that you think should be taught in school, because The Origin of Species has about 70 references to religion and creation.
A secular education can certainly include the study of religion, though in a science class, it would be Darwin's scientific influence that would be of primary interest.
Clive Hayden: Have you actually read the book?
Um, yes. It terms of scientific influence, it ranks with Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo and Spezielle Relativitätstheorie.Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
You have a very odd view of how a secular eduation works. Darwin’s Origin of Species is an important moment in scientific history. It shouldn’t be used to teach the state of current science, but it can be used to discuss that moment in scientific history.
You have a very odd view of what constitutes a secular work that you think should be taught in school, because The Origin of Species has about 70 references to religion and creation. If we are to be consistent, that book cannot be taught from either by your criterion of secular education. I suppose, one could, black-out entire sections of it that make religious arguments, and teach the rest of it, but that is not the current form of the book. So if you want to teach the current form of the book, you're going to be teaching religion, I should say, anti-religion, but religion nevertheless, and creation, miracles etc., are all discussed. Let's be consistent Zachriel. Have you actually read the book?Clive Hayden
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Timaeus: Absent the judicially activist interpretation, Eugenie Scott could say what she really thinks about the religious idea of a designer, without fear of jeopardizing the NCSE’s educational agenda, ...
The NCSE is a private organization and can say anything they want.
Timaeus: ... and Michael Behe’s views could be (I don’t say should be, but could be) taught (not endorsed, but taught, i.e., explained) in ninth-grade biology class.
Behe's has yet to convince his scientific peers that his ideas have merit.
Timaeus: Your ravings about not teaching religious catechism in science class I disregard.
Raving? Are you alright? Public schools teach a secular curriculum, but you are free to teach most anything you want to your children, or the children of your congregation in catechism classes, or Bible Studies, or at the Temple.
Timaeus: Perhaps you think it should be illegal to mention the Declaration in science class?
As an important political document, it is entirely appropriate to discuss this in political science or history classes. It's not a scientific document, though.
Timaeus: And perhaps, then, you think it should be illegal to mention Darwin’s *Origin of Species* in biology class, or at least to discuss the passages where he takes design seriously as a hypothesis to be refuted.
You have a very odd view of how a secular eduation works. Darwin's Origin of Species is an important moment in scientific history. It shouldn't be used to teach the state of current science, but it can be used to discuss that moment in scientific history.
Timaeus: The only neutral approach — you still have not grasped this — is to allow naturalism itself to be questioned, within the confines of science class.
Naturalism is a philosophical position, hence belongs in classes on philosophy.
Timaeus: I realize that for a person of modern education, such as I take you to be, this is a dreadful heresy, as naturalism is equated in modern times with rationality itself.
It would be appropriate for you to refrain from making stuff up.
Timaeus: I said nothing whatsoever about lightning being guided.
Then let's be explicit. Is lightning guided? Is it appropriate to say that there is no scientific evidence God uses lightning to punish the wicked?Zachriel
January 6, 2010
January
01
Jan
6
06
2010
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Mr StephenB, What term would you use? I think agnostic would be closer to the truth. I am in the process of acquiring a Zen Buddhist as a brother-in-law. We had a great set of talks over the holidays about superconductivity (his day job is physics) and Buddhism. He gave me a Christmas present of the book "Patience With God" by Tomas Halik. Halik was a Czech psychologist who was secretly ordained a Catholic priest prior to the Velvet Revolution. While the book has some problems with organization and translation from Czech, I am working through it. The book uses the gospel story of Zaccheus to structure an argument that the doubtful and diffident are important to the Church. Halik has no use for smug triumphalism (is made almost physically ill by American megachurch evangelicalism) and is arguing that doubt and even atheism have important lessons in the mystery of God for everyone. I just finished a section on St. Therese of Lisieux, which contained this interesting section: Last year I read what is perhaps the most thorough and in-depth biography of St. Therese, from the pen of the American theologian Thomas Nevin. Free of the sweetly pious icing of previous editions, the author, who had carefully studied Therese's authentic and unexpugated texts, came to the convincing if somewhat shocking conclusion that this saint and doctor of the church died without faith, literally without belief in heaven and eternal life. Thank you for asking the question, I appreciate the chance to share some of this with you. Next up with the brother in law is the question of whether the True Nature of Man follows Bose-Einstein statistics or Fermi-Dirac statistics! Exciting stuff...Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Please allow Zach to keep posting here. His posts are nicely instructive. It's not that his over-educated dribble is all that rare, its just that he laces them with such honest bigotry.Upright BiPed
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 61: Obviously you have not read the statement on cosmic and biological evolution in Bertrand Russell's "A Free Man's Worship", or you would not have written what you have written. After you've read it, I will gladly accept your retraction. My point about the Establishment Clause (which is not against the clause itself, but against the way it has been overextended by activist judges), is that it has produced cowardly equivocation and an oily politics of strange bedfellows. Absent the judicially activist interpretation, Eugenie Scott could say what she really thinks about the religious idea of a designer, without fear of jeopardizing the NCSE's educational agenda, and Michael Behe's views could be (I don't say should be, but could be) taught (not endorsed, but taught, i.e., explained) in ninth-grade biology class. Such frankness would be better and healthier for American society all around. The current situation produces court-created institutionalized hypocrisy. You perhaps never wondered why Dawkins was not summoned as a witness for Darwinism at the Dover trial; rather, Ken Miller, a much more minor player on the world scene of evolutionary theory, was employed. If you do not grasp the bearing of the legal team's choice, and its relationship to the current understanding of the establishment clause, I can only recommend that you take some courses in political science and/or jurisprudence, or simply consult a wise old uncle who understands realpolitik. Your ravings about not teaching religious catechism in science class I disregard. I never advocated any such thing. Of course, the Founders of the U.S.A. would completely disagree with you that mentioning the possibility of intelligent design in nature constitutes catechism or is a violation of the Establishment Clause. There's a little document called The Declaration of Independence that you should read sometime; it contains an interesting word --"Creator". Perhaps you think it should be illegal to mention the Declaration in science class? Or in *any* public school class, lest atheists be offended? And perhaps, then, you think it should be illegal to mention Darwin's *Origin of Species* in biology class, or at least to discuss the passages where he takes design seriously as a hypothesis to be refuted. Was Darwin "teaching religion" when he wrote those passages? (But perhaps I have no right to presume that a champion of evolution has read Darwin.) In any case, if the ninth-grade biology students in America are being left with the impression (even if it isn't stated directly) that undirected processes sufficiently explain the origin of all species, they *are* being taught religion -- they are being taught the theological position known as "naturalism". The only neutral approach -- you still have not grasped this -- is to allow naturalism itself to be questioned, within the confines of science class. I realize that for a person of modern education, such as I take you to be, this is a dreadful heresy, as naturalism is equated in modern times with rationality itself. But it was not always so. The greatest minds of the ancient and medieval worlds -- minds much finer than Coyne and Dawkins and Carl Sagan and E. O. Wilson and others who are perhaps your heroes -- found naturalism an inadequate account of nature. I said nothing whatsoever about lightning being guided. Further, there is no accurate analogy between lightning (an actual natural process, whose causality is fully or almost fully understood) and macroevolution (a hypothetical natural process, which, even if real, is nowhere near understandable in terms of unguided natural causes). When you can explain how an eye evolved as well as an atmospheric physicist can explain how lightning works, come back to me and I'll reconsider your analogy. T.Timaeus
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, I prefer to maintain a certain formality, and our friendship has not yet passed the slap and tickle phase. I admit I am a bit perplexed by your reversion to "grumpy culture warrior" mode after a few thoughtful posts. Are you as math averse as Darwin? It is a pity. Separating evolution from the context of biology is helpful. The process of evolution has proven useful in exactly those fields you consider serious.Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Nakashima @ 64: My friends just call me Timaeus. You wrote: "So instead of waiting for that dino DNA, I recommend to you to try to understand evolution by exploring these mathematical tools." Why is it my job to explore these mathematical tools? I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I'm not claiming that Darwinian or analogous processes produced all the species of life. It's the job of the evolutionary biologists, who make an utterly audacious claim to knowledge of origins, to master these tools (along with a whole lot of genetics and developmental processes that we don't understand yet) before imposing their theory as fact upon the world, and upon a captive audience of ninth-grade science students. If the Darwinians can't show in any detail how the process occurred, what justifies their monopoly over the educational process? Over the editorial pages of the New York Times and the New Republic? Over the production decisions of NOVA television? Darwinian biology has been granted cultural and social and legal and even political power that is completely unearned by its very petty achievements (explaining finch beaks and antibiotic resistance). Come back to me when you - or some Darwinian in a book you have read -- can give a near-complete evolutionary pathway to *any* organ, organelle, system, or organism. Until then, I continue to class the undisciplined and ad hoc imaginative reconstructions of Darwinian evolution under "armchair speculation which would be laughed out of court in serious disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry or engineering." T.Timaeus
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, I only gave Dr Denton's name to provide a reference point, a shorthand for a position. I am aware that there are people like Simon Conway-Morris who wold hold that far more specific things than protein based life are inevitable, but my opinion is based on what I see today as the limits of our current evidence. It could be that upright bilaterians with intelligences like our own are inevitable, but I haven't seen that evidence presented yet, while the lack of obvious disturbance to the universe is an argument against that view, IMHO. Darwin himself, in his original conception of a theory of evolution, may certainly have emphasized some parts overmuch. This may have come from a perceived need to stress a uniformitarian perspective, a great lack of understanding the eventual physical basis heritable and variable traits, and an almost complete ignorance of how chemistry could drive the origin of life and thereby determine forever things like the genetic code. These failings of Darwin and Darwinism as a historical artifact do not detract from the power of his theory in the abstract. We can study evolution without fixing it to a certain biology via population genetics and genetic algorithms. These tools do tell us about the edges of evolution - where it works and where it doesn't. My use of the word choice merely shows that I think the actual values taken by certain physical constants are somewhat arbitrary. Our universe is not 'fine' tuned for life - life is an expectation of universes over a wide range of possible values for these constants. I am not a fan of multiple universes outside of science fiction. Similarly to using GAs to study evolution in the abstract, we can study choices of physics and chemistry in the abstract. There are interesting cellular automata in which life arises based only on the 'energy' of a random start and a particular choice of physics. So we can start investigating these things without waiting for DNA to be extracted from dinosaur fossils. Mathematics has an interesting heuristic - if you are having trouble solving a particular problem, try solving a more abstract version of the same problem. If you succeed, apply these new insights to your original problem. Abtracting evolution to GAs and universes to CAs is in that grand tradition. Part of the problem of evolution is that it is an abstraction of a process, not a relation. F=mA is a relation. Evolution is an iterated function system. The results of a continued IFS are notoriously complex even for very simple choices of function - look at how many fractal pictures are generated of the Mandelbrot set. So instead of waiting for that dino DNA, I recommend to you to try to understand evolution by exploring these mathematical tools.Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
---Nakashima: "Certainly, though if you’ve read some of what I’ve posted here, ‘atheist’ might not be the term I would agree to use about myself." What term would you use?StephenB
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
Nakashima @ 60: OK, I shall withdraw the term "atheist". But let's talk about Michael Denton. Though he doesn't belong to ID understood as a certain movement, he is certainly a design theorist. In his second book he uses the concept of design throughout, and the word "design" figures strongly in his conclusion. He even speaks of science as pointing to natural theology. He also speaks much against the Darwinian understanding of evolution (though not against evolution itself). His critique of Darwinian theory is much the same as my own -- it relies far too much on chance and does not take into account how finely-tuned everything in nature is. You have one odd phrase: "this universe's choice of physics and chemistry". What does "choice" mean here? Are you using the word loosely, or in its proper sense? We don't normally speak of universes as "choosing" things for themselves. We could, however, speak of God as having chosen a physics and chemistry for the universe. Or did you perhaps mean that there are many universes, with different laws of nature, and we just happen to live in one of the few whose laws of nature are suitable for life? If so, I wonder what reason can be given for believing in multiple universes, other than speculations in theoretical physics which are disputed among the physicists themselves, and are untestable against the empirical world, where any alternate universes, even should they exist, are forever unobservable to us. What intellectual advantage does the notion of multiple universes have that "God" or "the designer" doesn't have? T.Timaeus
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Timaeus: There was nothing “ambiguous” in the notion of unguided evolution in the writings of Bertrand Russell, or any of a host of scientist-popularizers of evolution in the 20th century. They did not hide behind a distinction between empirically unguided and theologically guided. When they said unguided, they meant unguided, period. Of course, this was back in a manly era when both scientists and philosophers were not forced to tippy-toe due to completely irresponsible interpretations of the Establishment Clause foisted upon the nation by activist judges.
Rather odd to bring up the U.S. Establishment Clause with the Third Earl Russell, the Viscount Amberley in the same paragraph. Russell's thoughts were somewhat more nuanced than you seem to imply.
Russell: Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? ... None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Perhaps Zeus does throw lightning bolts at the wicked in the Vale of Témpi below, but the science indicates an 'unguided' process of electrical discharge.
Timaeus: A decent school system would allow open debate on this topic (guided versus unguided), not hem it in by all kinds of restrictions, coming from churches on one side, and atheist establishment-clause pushers on the other.
Science classes are for teaching science, not theology. Sorry, there is no scientific evidence that lightning (or evolution) is 'guided' in the sense you suggest. There is nothing in U.S. law preventing you from teaching your children religion, opening your own church or teaching catechism to anyone who wishes to listen to you.Zachriel
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Mr Timaeus, Do you agree to these terms, Nakashima? Certainly, though if you've read some of what I've posted here, 'atheist' might not be the term I would agree to use about myself. My personal opinion, like Michael Denton and many others, is that protein based life was inevitable in this universe's choice of physics and chemistry, on this planet and probably many others during the history of the universe.Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Zachriel @ 40, 41, etc.: There was nothing “ambiguous” in the notion of unguided evolution in the writings of Bertrand Russell, or any of a host of scientist-popularizers of evolution in the 20th century. They did not hide behind a distinction between empirically unguided and theologically guided. When they said unguided, they meant unguided, period. Of course, this was back in a manly era when both scientists and philosophers were not forced to tippy-toe due to completely irresponsible interpretations of the Establishment Clause foisted upon the nation by activist judges. The NCSE’s “neutrality” regarding the guidedness or non-guidedness of evolution masks as a principle of fairness, but in fact is merely a social and political concession to those deemed “stupid” enough to still be religious. Beneath the formal neutrality the substantive position is anything but neutral. Basically, its position is that species originated via Darwinian means, i.e., without guidance, but if you wish, you can privately believe that there really was some mysterious and incomprehensible (and by the principle of parsimony, redundant) form of guidance going on -- just as long as you shut up about it in all public contexts, including curriculum, textbooks, high school science classes, grant proposals, thesis proposals, tenure applications, etc. In other words “unguided” evolution is demanded in all but name, and career-killing penalties are applied for refusal to comply with the demand. Some neutrality. A decent school system would allow open debate on this topic (guided versus unguided), not hem it in by all kinds of restrictions, coming from churches on one side, and atheist establishment-clause pushers on the other. Americans have unfortunately forgotten the lesson that they used to know and teach the world so well, i.e., that the price to pay for a free society is free and open debate, where some thin-skinned people get offended. The American school system should reflect and uphold this principle of “the right to incidentally offend” rather than the current principle of “you’re not allowed to say that because it offends my theistic/atheistic beliefs, and if you say that, I’ll take you to court and make you stop saying it.” On both sides of the ID/Darwinist debate, the religious and the anti-religious, there are those who seek to control the schools so that they can control thought. This is an utterly un-American attitude, and all moderate Americans should unite to oppose it. If necessary the Establishment Clause should be re-written with an explicit statement that “establishment of religion” does not touch the right of educational institutions to explore (in a non-coercive atmosphere) *all possible rational explanations for the order of nature* -- including both non-design and design explanations. By the way, at no point did I indicate any discomfort with the notion of common ancestry. Both scientifically and theologically I am indifferent to the notion, and could live with either a proof or a disproof of common descent. However, I think it’s scientifically irresponsible to insist on common ancestry as a fact, when no convincing detailed Darwinian explanation has been found for *any* major organ, organelle, system, or organism. It would be more appropriate to say that there is circumstantial evidence for common descent, but that we really have very little idea, on the level of mechanical idea, of how macroevolution can possibly work. So we’re in the position of a prosecuting attorney who can show Bill had the opportunity to murder Mary, but is unable to show that Bill had the means. Thus, I disagree with you that the argument for the mechanism must first take for granted the truth of common descent. The fact is that common descent itself is in doubt without a plausible mechanism. You know, they say that everyone on earth has a “double”, someone who looks exactly (for all intents and purposes) like them. Does it follow that I am genetically descended from my “double”, who lives in Boise, Idaho? Surely not. Merely establishing similarity of features proves nothing about historical lineage, unless a mechanism tying features to lineage is established. This is why Tiktaalik is a complete yawner. Tiktaalik doesn’t tell us how the fin became a foot. So how is it proof for common descent? If someone were to ask you, "How do you know that this *morphologically* intermediate form is a *historically* intermediate form?", what argument could you give that does not presuppose the conclusion that you wish to establish? Where is the proof that morphologically (or genetically) intermediate forms are necessarily historically intermediate forms? They may well be; but where is the demonstration that they must be? This is not a theological issue for me, as I have no axe to grind against common descent. It is a methodological issue. What justifies the move from “is genetically similar to” or “is morphologically similar to” or “is biochemically similar to” to “is descended from” or “is the ancestor of” or “shares a common ancestor with”? I do not see the demonstrative force of the argument here. As for Mt. Rushmore, you have “insider” historical information. But what if you were to land on a planet that showed no sign of any past civilization, but which had on it a sculpture like that on Mt. Rushmore -- a sculpture apparently portraying a group of intelligent-looking beings (maybe vaguely humanoid, but with antennae or Vulcan ears or other such variations, or maybe less humanoid and more octopus-looking or more arthropod-looking, but still apparently organic beings of some sort) - what would you conclude, if you bound yourself by the NCSE's principle of "methodological naturalism"? By NCSE principles, you would have no right to infer a designer, because you have no independent knowledge of the existence of any non-human designers in the entire universe. (In NCSE-science, remember, you aren't allowed to postulate designers of unknown nature and unknown motives, because you can't offer a plausible prediction of what such designers might design, and therefore can't test purported artifacts against any criteria.) Thus, barred by a mechanical methodological rule from the obvious design inference, you'd have to say that you “knew” that natural forces had produced the sculpture, even though you couldn’t provide any plausible detailed account of how blasting sand or ultra-violet rays could carve out such intricate and structured figures in the rock. This methodological naturalism would in this case lead you to a completely wrong conclusion, since in fact the sculpture was designed. That’s the problem with the monopoly status given to non-teleological origins theories; it willfully excludes possibly correct teleological explanations of origins. A truly neutral science of nature would consider both possibilities. But “truly neutral” is something that neo-Darwinism is not. And that applies equally to the NCSE. T.Timaeus
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
To Nakashima: First, your number of 150 years is appropriate, though not for the reason you suppose. Darwinian theory has had exactly 150 years now -- and has failed to explain the detailed evolutionary pathway to even one major organ, organelle, system, or organism. Compare that with the first 150 years of physics since Galileo, the first 150 years of chemistry since Boyle, the first 150 years of solar system studies since Kepler, the first (less than) 150 years of genetics since Mendel, the first (much less than) 150 years of molecular biology since Crick and Watson, the first 150 years of geology since Lyell, the first (much less than) 150 years of computer science since Turing. What's the hold-up? Could it be that evolutionary biology is proceeding so slowly because it is fundamentally flawed science? Second, it isn't necessary to provide every chisel strike in order to demonstrate that Mt. Rushmore, or any other complex sculpture, is a designed object, whereas it is necessary to demonstrate a very large number of the steps that would be necessary to create a lung -- if the possible causes of the lung are limited to chance and mechanical laws (as they are in Darwinian theory). The intrinsic improbability of Darwinian macroevolutionary change ups the standards of proof. Darwin knew that this was a fair criticism to make, which was why he was so upset when the evidence at first showed that the earth was very young. He knew that he needed at least billions of years to overcome the low probabilities. (Though as we now know, thanks to Dembski, Meyer and others, even billions of years aren't nearly enough.) Thus, it is totally reasonable to insist that the figures on the plains at Nazca or the rocks at Stonehenge were not produced purely through chance and necessity, but required intelligent design, and equally reasonable for a man of science to doubt that Darwinian mechanisms can deliver the goods. If dissenting scientists were allowed to speak freely, without fear of reprisal regarding degrees, hiring, tenure, grants, etc., Darwinian theory would have much less public support than it does, because it is an implausible hypothesis. What keeps it alive is one over-riding virtue -- it keeps God out of the picture. And for a certain kind of scientist -- and science propagandist -- that's enough to qualify it as a scientific hypothesis, no matter how shoddy. Read Lewontin's famous quotation daily -- science cannot allow a divine foot in the door. Better a ludicrous, weak, undocumented theory, consisting of little more than generalities and promissory notes about what biology will establish in the future, than a coherent theory, in tune with the empirical facts, which admits design. Regarding the current power of ID theory, Bill Dembski's *No Free Lunch* already provides preliminary calculations of the type you are demanding, and for the bacterial flagellum in particular. I suggest you read it. And the more we learn about actual mechanisms (genetic and deveopmental), the more precise we will be able to make such probability calculations. This puts Darwinian theory in between a rock and a hard place. If we don't learn more -- much more -- than we know today about genetic and developmental mechanisms, Darwinian theory will never be more than a bedtime story, lacking the necessary details to be scientific. And if we ever get to the point where we *do* understand literally everything about genetics and development, then we will be able to calculate with razor-sharp precision how likely it is that random mutations plus natural selection could produce macroevolutionary change, and the threat this poses to Darwinism is that the probabilities will be so low that even trillions of years couldn't do the job. So I don't feel threatened by progress in basic biological knowledge; I say, bring it on! If it works out that that the probability of life's evolution on the earth (completely without design) is as high even as 1 in 10, I will concede to the Darwinians that that's how man and all the species got here. But if it works out that the probability is more like 1 in 10^40, I will expect the Darwinians to swallow their pride and admit that design was necessary. I'm putting my God on the firing line, if you put your atheism on the same firing line. Do you agree to these terms, Nakashima? T.Timaeus
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Mr Jerry, Thank you for recognizing that I do put in some effort to support my positions by referencing peer reviewed research in obscure journals with names like Science and Nature and Cell Biology, the kind Timaeus would prefer not to see cited in his basic yet detailed while standing on one foot and holding his breath (but patiently) explanation. Thank you for recognizing that I go searching for facts, and share facts. I'm glad you find them interesting occaisionally. I do also! ;) You are also correct that, just as every scientist is really an ID scientist, all of my posts are really ID supporting posts, especially the ones that say nothing. My choice of words might, on the surface, support evidence based methodological naturalism and the tendency of alleles to change frequency over time, thus fomenting totalitarianism and libertinism simultaneously, but the blanks between the words, the pauses, the ellipses, the might I even say ... gaps ... certainly speak volumes about ID.Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Nakashima: "The nerve is called ‘fairness’." Oh my. The PZ Huxley Party has called a foul for fairness against the IDiots. We have now entered the Twilight Zone.Upright BiPed
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
vjtorley: Timaeus and others want to know the details, the How.
Yes, and to do that requires establishing Common Descent. Notice how the Theory of Common Descent led to the discovery of a fossil with intermediate characteristics which helps answer his question.Zachriel
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Timaeus has a history here but especially over at the ASA site. He is a patient person and I am sure what he is doing is expressing that those who back the theory of evolution essentially have nothing. Nakashima reemphasizes that point everytime he comments here. He is one to search the depths of the internet for facts to back up his case and yet essentially provides nothing except the occasional interesting fact. The recent invoking of Mendel is a case in point. Mendel only showed that changes could be made if the basic material was already there. Mendel is the not the basis for any real theory for major change. So Nakashima screams ID every time he makes a post by his silence or deflections.jerry
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
vividbleau: The more I think about it to use common descent as evidence for unguided evolutionary processes is a circular argument. What mechanism is responsible for common descent?
The evidence for Common Descent is found independently in the nested hierarchy. Mechanism is entailed, of course. So, no. It's not circular.Zachriel
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Nakashima-san, Thank you for proving my point.Joseph
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Mr Joseph, If science is an evidenced based enterprise then the theory of evolution ain’t science as there isn’t any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. Ignore that Augustinian monk behind the curtain.Nakashima
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Zachriel says that we have to start with the evidence for Common Descebnt. However that "evidence" is not exclusive to Common Descent. IOW the same data that supports Common Descent can also be used to support convergence and/ or common design. And that is why Common Descent needs to find something that explains the DIFFERENCES observed. Yet to date no one can- scientifically.Joseph
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT
ZAchriel:
From the strong support for that theory, we know that mice and men share a common ancestor, and the differences are due to descent with modification.
LoL!! We don't even know if such a transformation is even possible. IOW we can't even test the premise that mice and men share a common ancestor. Is that how your "science" operates?
From Common Descent, we know that land vertebrates evolved from fish.
Again no one even knows if such a transformation is even possible. The premise is untestable.Joseph
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
If science is an evidenced based enterprise then the theory of evolution ain't science as there isn't any evidence that the transformations required are even possible. But anyway given time and money someone will figure out the designed genetic algorithms which determine form.Joseph
January 5, 2010
January
01
Jan
5
05
2010
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply