Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why is a “giant” of evolution getting so excited about the “midgets” of ID?

William Dembski
July 31, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the latest New Republic Online, the irrepressible Jerry Coyne keeps the insults against ID coming:

. . . [O]ne has to ask whether Coulter (who, by the way, attacks me in her book) really understands the Darwinism she rejects. The answer is a resounding No. According to the book’s acknowledgments, Coulter was tutored in the “complex ideas” of evolution by David Berlinski, a science writer; Michael Behe, a third-rate biologist at Lehigh University (whose own department’s website disowns his bizarre ideas); and William Dembski, a fairly bright theologian who went off the intellectual rails and now peddles creationism at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. These are the “giants” of the ID movement, which shows how retarded it really is. Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush. . . . [For Coyne’s entire review of GODLESS, go here.]

Why does a giant of evolution, like Coyne, need to sully himself with an extended critical review of Coulter’s GODLESS? Can you imagine Einstein reviewing a popular book by a journalist critiquing his general theory of relativity? Why does evolution need so much defending?

By the way, I received my first PhD, in mathematics, from Coyne’s institution, the University of Chicago. It’s in my capacity as a mathematician, rather than as a theologian, that I make my primary contribution to ID. Also, Lehigh is, as I recall, one of the top 50 research institutions in the US, and Behe is a full professor there. So calling him a third-rate biologist seems a bit much. Can Coyne point us to any third-rate biologists who love evolution as much as he does? Does evophilia automatically make one at least a second-rate biologist?

Comments
The variations exhibited by dog breeds are due ENTIRELY to allelic mutations and they in no way involve evolution. It is BECAUSE they are allelic, point, base pair substitutions that they have NO evolutionary significance whatsoever. There was never a role for Mendelian genetics in creative evolution. All it was ever good for was the production of varieties which is all it does today. Ge used to it. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
Ofro: said "OK, let’s assume that it could be shown by genomic sequencing that a cichlid species from Lake Malawi and one from Lake Victoria differ as much from each other in their genomic sequence as humans differ from chimpanzee. (This experiment hasn’t been done on the cichlid side, but I have an inkling that it could be so). Does this mean that human and chimp are just variations of each other?" Ofro - Bearing in mind that to catch all the "fish" you would have to go higher than the superclass (see above), because you have to get both jawed fish and unjawed fish,and we are also in the superclass that catches (boned fish) what Scott is saying is... I AM A FISH Scott, thank you for coming out of the closet and admitting your fishiness.MikeFNQ
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Forgetful me... Um, Scott? Species: saulosi Genus: Pseudotropheus Family: Cichlidae Suborder: Labroidei Division: Telostei Sublass: Neopterygii Class: Actinopterygii Grade: Teleostomi Superclass: Gnathostomata (the Jawed Fishes) Subphylum: Vertebrata Phylum: Chordata Hmmm... Evolution of a superclass is "just speciation"? Wow! Is this a new record for moving the goal posts?MikeFNQ
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
“And yet, still fish. And it comes down to how one defines “speciation”. What you call speciation, I call variation.” Scott... The fact that SPECIATION and SPECIES are so similar should provide you with a little bit of a hint. What do you think "speciation" means? The creation of new phyla? Wouldn't that be "phylation" or something? Mea culpa Re:My comment about transitionals - I think in my haste I misunderstood Jerry's comment. I think he meant transitional fossils in the Cambrian Explosion, not just any transitional fossils from any era. I apologise for my misunderstanding and off-topic response. Mike Thank the Intelligent Designer it's Friday!!! No... it just doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? :)MikeFNQ
August 4, 2006
August
08
Aug
4
04
2006
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PDT
scott said: "And yet, still fish. And it comes down to how one defines “speciation”. What you call speciation, I call variation." OK, let's assume that it could be shown by genomic sequencing that a cichlid species from Lake Malawi and one from Lake Victoria differ as much from each other in their genomic sequence as humans differ from chimpanzee. (This experiment hasn't been done on the cichlid side, but I have an inkling that it could be so). Does this mean that human and chimp are just variations of each other?ofro
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Further reading on ID and transitionals: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1408 https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1292 http://www.idthefuture.com/2006/04/tiktaalik_as_missing_link_a_ne.htmlScott
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Scott: “Cichlid” is not a species. Pseudotropheus saulosi is a species. Labeotropeus fuellerborni is a species. Those two species are in different genera. They are both members of the same family, Cichlidae.
And yet, still fish. And it comes down to how one defines "speciation". What you call speciation, I call variation.
Jerry: Darwinism is not embarassed by the Cambrian Explosion. It’s a wonderful subject that Darwinists love learning more about. It is not in any way embarassing, you just think it is. Only one transitional? Heck, Acanthostega, Tiktaliik, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Rhodocetus, Himalayacetus, Basilosaurus, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, no matter how much you wave your hands at it.
The burden lies with the Darwinist to detail which species these oddities are transitions between. The examples you cite present distinct features in their own right. Further, if we are going by the gradualistic Darwinian synthesis, there should be an overwhelming abundance of fossils which display very slight gradual morphological change. But we do not. Instead we have a handful of controversial fragments and specimens with distinct body plans. And for the record, most ID proponents do not deny a form of descent (shoot, even YEC's believe in an intelligently guided "descent" within certain "kinds"), but rather a descent which resembles the unfolding of an algorythmic quantum level program. And this would harmonize with a fossil record which demonstrates the abprupt of appearance of novel body plans. My big question is, when has it been scientifically demonstrated that NS + RM can produce novel cells, tissue, or body plans? Just-So stories won't do.Scott
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Scott: "Cichlid" is not a species. Pseudotropheus saulosi is a species. Labeotropeus fuellerborni is a species. Those two species are in different genera. They are both members of the same family, Cichlidae. Jerry: Darwinism is not embarassed by the Cambrian Explosion. It’s a wonderful subject that Darwinists love learning more about. It is not in any way embarassing, you just think it is. Only one transitional? Heck, Acanthostega, Tiktaliik, Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Rhodocetus, Himalayacetus, Basilosaurus, Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, etc, etc, etc. The list goes on and on, no matter how much you wave your hands at it. Both of you: Yes, wolves and foxes are both in family Canidae, Saulosis and fuellerborni are both in Cichlidae. Similarly you an a chimp are both in Hominidae (Pongidae having been abandoned). Just microevolution? Mike If the various Archaeopterx fossils are the remains of birds, which lazy intelligent designer forgot to stick a beak on them?MikeFNQ
August 3, 2006
August
08
Aug
3
03
2006
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
John Davison, Do you think that examples such as the cichlids could be explained solely by allele changes just as different dog breeds are bred essentially to change the alleles? There doesn't seem to be any need for mutations for dog variations so why cannot the cichlids be explained the same way.jerry
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
I'm waiting!John A. Davison
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
MikeNFQ and I have been going back and forth for a few days on the tail end of the Mayr thread that is getting further down the list each day. He has many beefs but one of them is that we move the goal posts on microevolution. Here is my latest reply from the Mayr thread to his particular complaint about ID and microevolution. This is just my opinion because some others here who support ID may disagree with it: "You seem to be on some campaign about microevolution. I don't believe ID has much quarrel with any of the ideas in it. For example, the family Canidae includes common dogs, wolves, foxes, jackals, etc. So this taxonomy would include family, genus, and species. I doubt if anyone in the ID movement would be upset if someone came along and conclusively proved that they all evolved from one ancestor group. It is not a big deal. What the ID people say is that it is extremely unlikely that many novel life functions evolved. And they say it is pretty much impossible that the first cell happened by naturalistic causes. You see ID is primarily interested in the origin of complex novel life processes while neo Darwinism is interested in small trivial modifications. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. What ID says is that Darwinists extrapolate without any evidence to these complex novel processes. That is why the Cambrian Explosion is an embarrassment for Darwinists. There is no diversity predicted by Darwin, only disparity or very different organisms with little variation within each phylum. It is also why the fossil record in general is an embarrassment because there are no examples of transitions outside of a few controversial fossils. And I mean few, sometimes only one. In a way ID subsumes neo Darwinism, presuming it is an explanation for some limited life form changes and may in fact account for some more wide ranging phenomena but absolutely can not account for much of the complexity of life itself. You have to look for something beyond neo Darwinism for that." Any way that is my take on ID and Neo Darwinism. According to my taxonomy scheme, NDE is part of ID but only represents one of the many mechanisms that have produced life and all its varieties. And NDE may turn out only to be responsible for minor changes to life forms while the major changes originated by some other means. One of those mechanisms is definitely an input by an intelligence. So the better logic and science backs ID. NDE is a charade even if it in fact explains cichlids which I am willing to grant.jerry
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
There has never been a species generated either in the laboratory or, as nearly as one can tell, in nature that arose through the accumulation of allelic mutations. If anyone can demonstrate an exapmple, be my guest. Please do it right here. I say you can't. And no bloviating please. I expect chapter and verse. I do not opine. I assert with great confidence. You may write that down. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
scott said: "The cichlids are still cichlids, Mike. Don’t buy variation as speciation no matter how hard they try to sell it to you." You shouldn't dismiss the cichlids argument that nonchalantly. The different species have specialized into totally different environments (rocky coast vs. sandy regions, clear vs. turbid waters), they differ in what they eat (other fish vs. microorganisms growing on algae etc.). And if you saw some of them, you would never guess that they are related, besides being "fish."ofro
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
The cichlids are still cichlids, Mike. Don't buy variation as speciation no matter how hard they try to sell it to you.Scott
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Jerry opines: The finches are trivial examples of natural selection which nearly everyone in ID accepts. The only problem is that natural selection seems to be limited to these trivial examples. It is basic genetics, nothing more and genetics is part of ID. So the finch example is really consistent with ID. Jerry has said the same thing about natural selection developing new species and genera. "It's just trivial microevolution"... Will we one day hear "Bah! It's still a quadruped! It's only microevolution, and in no way invalidates ID!" Mr Davison opines: "There is not a shred of evidence that alellic mutations ever played a creative role in speciation..." Hmm, the massive speciation of Rift Lake cichlids doesn't count as evidence? Mike Darwin's Dreampond: Drama in Lake Victoria by Tijs Goldschmidt - The most expensive book I ever read. $24.95 for the book, 100 times that for the aquariums so far.MikeFNQ
August 2, 2006
August
08
Aug
2
02
2006
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
The accumulation of deleterious mutations served an important role in evolution by causing ultimate extinction, assuming something else didn't cause it sooner. Think about it. Without extinction there could never have been an ascending evolution. There is not a shred of evidence that alellic mutations ever played a creative role in speciation or the formation of any of the higher categories. It is just one more aspect of the chance-happy, mutation-intoxicated Darwinian fairy tale. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Strangelove - This is complicated because most of the American population have such weak scientific educations. Americans, who are generally not stupid despite the CW in truely stupid places like Europe, have developed a distrust of credentialed people demanding lifestyle changes due to a host of claims of truth by them that have turned out to be not. Think Freud. Think Kinsey (biologist, pervert). Think Ehrlich (biologist trumphed by economist). Think Sagan (astrobiologist). As strong political factions and think-tanks attack evolution, it needs defending. Unless it's wrong.tribune7
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Sue, The finches are trivial examples of natural selection which nearly everyone in ID accepts. The only problem is that natural selection seems to be limited to these trivial examples. It is basic genetics, nothing more and genetics is part of ID. So the finch example is really consistent with ID. How your comment supports ID is that it is another example of people criticizing ID with things that ID accepts and supports. Detractors have not yet found evidence of anything that contradicts ID. Your post is just another example of how opponents of ID try to paste religion on to it. Why not forget about the religion and just talk science. The reason is that when the discussion is kept to science, Darwinism fails.jerry
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
Sue, Those finches have been mentioned many times on UD. Even YECs have no problem with the evidence (just the interpretations...).Patrick
August 1, 2006
August
08
Aug
1
01
2006
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
Tina, Thanks for the reference. I thought it meant something like purppose or goals so I just googled "teleology definition" and got a variety of things. Many connotations such as design, goals, final causes, ultimate end, purpose etc. So when used, the term should be defined by the user or else we will go round in circles. I love reading this site. It is so easy to learn new things. A lot of smart people here.jerry
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
Ok, I know that I am about to get whacked by the mod but I don't know where to put this. This is posted on the DA (school paper) site of West Virginia Univesity where I spent half my undergrad. This is the reason they will never get a red cent out of me (neither will my alma mater for that matter...mini me to WVU). It came from another school and written by those scholars known as students. I am really tempted to email the guy who wrote this and ask him if his IQ is over 10. It is nothing new but maybe alright for a chuckle. Enjoy! Time for the creationism theory to fly the coop Michael Bertacchi Western Courier (Western Illinois U.) The dispute between the theory of evolution and creationism has been long dragged out ever since Charles Darwin first developed the concept of evolution after a visit to the Galapagos Islands back in 1831. Even within the past year, debates over the inclusion of creationism in science textbooks have helped keep the ongoing battle in the public's eye. But with the scientific discoveries made this past week, it appears as though more evidence has been uncovered to strengthen Darwin's theory of evolution and, hopefully, put an end to the demand for creationism to be included in science textbooks. In an interesting twist of irony, a medium-sized bird named after the famous scientist is currently giving researchers the rare chance of document evolution as it occurs. Darwin's finches, a species of bird native to the very same islands that Darwin visited which inspired him to come up with his theory of evolution, is currently going through what scientists have dubbed "microevolution," or the occurrence of small-scale changes in a population over a few generations. Since a breeding population of large ground finches arrived on the islands in 1982, scientists have been able to watch and document how the finches beaks evolved in order to help accommodate for the new food competition. This news should, assuming basic logic and rational are not simply ignored lik e in the past, put creationists' ridiculous parade for the right for creationism to be taught as science to rest. There is a time and place for everything. Unfortunately for creationism and its followers, that time and place doesn't have anything to do with modern school systems, and as such, belong nowhere near any classroom or educational textbook. Since the events of 9/11, religious movements, Christianity specifically, have become increasingly more vocal. Our culture on a whole has fallen back to religion to try and find some stability in a time where stability seems to be scarce supply - and rightfully so. However, the line between stability and abuse of power is being crossed with nonsense like religious beliefs being taught as scientific fact. Just because people believe in something doesn't mean it belongs in the classroom - and, hopefully Darwin's finches are proving just that. It's understandable that religion plays such a powerful and important role in so many people's lives. However, our nation was built with the idea of separation of church and state for a reason. Trying to push moral and/or religious beliefs, even when done with the best of intentions, goes against every thing our country was founded on. While the freedom of religion is important to uphold and preserve, that preservation should not come at the expense of the degradation of scientific research which have taken years in order to be documented.sue
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
If you look up teleology, (wikipedia) it is made clear that teleology is about design vs. non-design, which puts it right at the heart of the ID challenge. I think the question of deleterious mutations is an aside in terms of ID simply because it doesn't matter from the limited perspective of ID. Something can be designed, and yet have flaws. Something can be designed, and yet have internal and external forces acting upon it in a deleterious manner...helpful I hope.tinabrewer
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Ofro, Well we might have a long discussion over just what “teleology is the central concept in ID” means. That seems to imply a motive on the part of the designer and as Dave Scott used to say when he was the moderator that motive of the designer is not part of the discipline. He would point to the link above on the side of the page which has the definition of ID which is "The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." There is more so read it. It is what I use as my basis for discussion which is why I didn't react to detrimental mutations having some kind of purpose as far as ID is concerned. I don't think ID would concern itself at all with the spread of diseases. They are spreading based on very fundamental genetic principles, which seems totally within the ID theory and we would have no quarrel with neo Darwinists on this issue. There is often a discussion of how to reconcile bad things with a beneficent designer but that is not really part of ID. There is another thread currently going on that concerns itself with the theodicy issue and there has been several before. Bill Dembski is interested in the topic and posts his own ideas as well as others but technically it is not part of ID though many use this issue as an argument against ID. I hope this explains my understanding about ID and the confusion about your question.jerry
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Strangelove wrote: The reason it would be difficult to imagine Einstein defending his theory in such a way is because it was never attacked by the popular journalists. 50% of the population didn’t feel that it went against their religion. Legislation was never passed to keep it out of schools. Labels like Einsteinism were never coined to give GR the appearance of a religion. The only people that he had to convince were his fellow scientists. After years of experiments and furthering of the theory, almost everyone agreed with him. There were holdouts of course, as is the case with every paradigm change. Einstein had the attitude of a true scientist. Test my theory- was his attitude. And there were tests that could falsify his theories because scientific theories are traditionally tested and validated through test results. There are no tests that could falsify Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory is believed in not tested. The holdouts against the paradigm change in this case are Darwinists. Their insistence that intelligent causality be rejected is motivated by extra-scientific concerns. In the end these concerns will be their undoing.pk4_paul
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
Jerry, my question was triggered by idadvisors' statement that “Teleology is the central concept in ID.” If teleology is that central, I would expect to see it applied to pretty much all observations in biology. Particularly since in my understanding much of the underlying tenet of ID appears to be the philosophical notion that we humans are here for a purpose, it surprises me that essentially no work appears to have been done in the area of genetic diseases (I mentioned two: cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease, which affect millions of people). Let us go one step further: why have these two diseases spread through such a large portion of the human population? Is there a design or purpose behind this spread? Am I misunderstanding ID or is ID really a very narrowly defined hypothesis, or is the above definition not quite correct?ofro
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Berlinski "is currently working on a book analyzing genetic algorithms." I look forward to reading it. —————————— Strangelove @8: "Legislation was never passed to keep [Einstein's theories] out of schools." It's ID which is now being kept out of schools by the government, not Darwinism. Strangelove: "Labels like Einsteinism were never coined to give GR the appearance of a religion." My M-W dictionary says the word "Darwinism" was coined in the year 1864. This may very well be it:
We regret to find ourselves compelled to dissent very widely from many of Professor Kolliker's remarks; and from none more thoroughly than from those in which he seeks to define what we may term the philosophical position of Darwinism.
-- Thomas Henry Huxley, "Criticisms on 'The Origin of Species' ", published in Natural History Review, 1864. If so, then Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") coined it. He and seemingly all of the other early, prominent supporters of it readily and unselfconsciously used the word. As have seemingly all of the recent, prominent supporters of it (Gould, Dawkins, Dennett, etc.).j
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
Ofro, I don't think anyone thinks too hard about detrimental mutations in term of evolution except that they might lead to extinction. What is a detrimental mutation? How do you define it? Maybe there are sections in genetics books on this but I have not taken a course in genetics. There could be a whole taxonomy of mutations and their effects. Obviously something that would prevent the fetus from being born is one. But then you get into a definitional problem for those that are born. As I said I don't think it is an issue with anyone in evolution but I could be wrong. You use the word teleology which implies that detrimental mutations might a have a goal. Maybe they do but ID does not seem to discuss it very much or seem to care. Should they care? It is obviously an issue with human births and how to treat them or prevent them but as far as evolution is concerned, they are usually discussed in terms of extinction. It is also an issue with infectious diseases. Population changes in microbes are heavily researched. Maybe you should pose your question a little differently because you seem to think it is an issue to be discussed and seem to think it is being dodged. Seems like a non issue to me but maybe it has been discussed but I don't know since I haven't read everything.jerry
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Jerry touches on a key point: never has there been observed an accumulation of mutations which would result in beneficial mutation generating novel species.Scott
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Oops, credibility - poor spelling and sloppy typing shouldn't diminish, I hope, my argument. Ill manners, I think, are deplorable. Then again, perhaps he hopes to obtain a lucrative book contract. Yet I prefer the erudite and witty conservatism, however, of Theodore Dalrymple over name calling any day: http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=47P. Phillips
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Coyne wrote, as quoted above: "These are the “giants” of the ID movement, which shows how retarded it really is. Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush. . ." Now, is it just me, or does the use of insults and name calling diminish the credibitly of any argument?P. Phillips
July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply