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:

. . .Ã‚Â [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

Yes, Coyne could have worded this better and could have avoid the personal slights. But on the other hand, he is talking about Coulter - a person who has no qualls at all about attacking the jugular when it comes to ad hominem. I think the real point here is why the ID movement feels it is advantageous for them to attach themselves to the likes of the highly polemic Ann Coulter. Ultimately ID is going to succeed or fail on the basis of scientific merit, not on the outcome of polls or how books are doing on the bestseller list.timcol_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

#17 jerry, "#13 ofro, I do not know anyone in ID who denies that there cannot be a beneficial mutation. These types of mutations occasionally happen but ID will deny is that there is any evidence that an accumulation of beneficial mutations has ever lead to any substantial changes in an organism." You didn't answer my question. My question was not about the teleology of beneficial muations but about the teleology of detrimental mutations, which are much more likely than beneficial muations.ofro_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Strangelove, Part of ID is an attack on neo-Darwinism because if neo Darwinism could explain a whole lot there would not be much need for ID. If you do not understand that, then you are missing a good deal of what this site is about. So any objection to ID is more often than not tantamount to support of neo Darwinism or one of the other naturalistic viewpoints but these other mechanisms have very little support. Many creationists also object to ID for many reasons but not because they support neo Darwinism. So yes there is a constant presence of neo Darwinism supporters here and as I have said they don't support it well when they come. My guess is that the defenders who love to argue do not do well here because they have to play by different rules than at other sites. Tina, From what I understand there is nothing in ID that says that an accumulation of mutations could not lead to a substantial change in an organism that favors it from a natural selection point of view. It is just that such a sequence has never been observed. Neo Darwinism assumes these changes took place but cannot point to any evidence that these changes actually happened by a series of mutations. Changes in populations have been observed but there has never been a change within a population that is considered substantial in terms of new body parts etc, which lead to increased complexity and with it an increased likelihood of selection. Bacteria are still bacteria; fruit flies are still fruit flies. If an experiment showed them to change in a way that they were truly different, ID would accept it probably immediately if it wasn't too artificial. I think I am explaining it correctly based on what I have read but always look for new input.jerry_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

ofro, I'm not familiar with, even as a bio minor(1989) the studies in random mutation, so I can't answer your question where the teleology is in detrimental mutation. I'm in agreement with the agreement in Cornell's latest class in ID--that so far intelligence is the only known cause for CSI--Orgels information content in DNA.idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

One can almost feel the Darwinian despair. Notice again that if one disagrees with Darwinism, it automatically means that one doesn't understand it. By the way, when I saw Coyne singling out Dembski as a "theologian", it reminds me of how wikipedia characterized Dr Steven Meyer as a "theologian". Interestingly, a few lines below, wikipedia "forgets" to list Meyer's theological degrees. I guess teaching in a Christian institution instantly makes one a theologian.Mats_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Jerry, Scientists should refer to the metaphysician first since metaphysic is where all science begins. Some of you might say what's this got to do with Darwinistic evolutionary theories? Everything.idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Scientist seek to find permanent judgements behind the changing world. In Platonism (H--D) judgement are expressed in proposition, in Aristotelianism first principles are expressed in premises, conclusion of H--D arguments. Crudely, scientist seek for the permanent behing the world of the changing. Then test it. Seeing if the H--D argument will work in the physical world. If it does, it has some confirmation.idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

jerry: In my understanding ID does not deny that mutations can lead to substantial changes in an organism. It just concerns itself with the detection of design, which could at least potentially manifest through mutations accumulating over time. This is my own understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.tinabrewer_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

jerry: "When those in the labs appear here, they rarely are able to defend neo Darwinism very well." This is not a blog for the defense of neo-Darwinism. This is a blog for ID. You can go to other, less moderated forums if you are seeking information about neo-Darwinism. Those forums are filled with apt defenders who love to argue.Strangelove_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Three comments, #4 aji, I didn't say that Coyne was political but the New Republic is a very political publisher with sophisticated editors. The fact that such an ad hominen attack appeared in it says something. #8 Strangelove, when those in the labs appear here, they rarely are able to defend neo Darwinism very well. Now that is my opinion but I have failed to see any real justification coming from these types of people. Some are very knowledgeable on issues in microbiology and evolutionary biology such as Great Ape and Dr. MacNeill and from these people we have learned a lot. There are others on this site almost every day. You be the judge if these people hold the upper hand on true understanding. I fail to see any convincing rationale from the so-called people in the trenches who do not need any convincing. #13 ofro, I do not know anyone in ID who denies that there cannot be a beneficial mutation. These types of mutations occasionally happen but ID will deny is that there is any evidence that an accumulation of beneficial mutations has ever lead to any substantial changes in an organism. There is nothing philosophical or theological about it. It is pure science. These terms (philosophical or theological) are usually imposed on ID from those who object to it. In my experience the ID people have a better grasp of science that those who support Darwinism. They have to since they are put under a microscope everytime they speak while people like Ken Miller gets away with murder and no one in the science community says boo.jerry_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

And Jerry Coyne was the very same person who said, ]In scienceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom.scordova_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

The detrimental lack purpose, detriment would be the consequence.idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

That is the key. Random mutations, purposeless or ones that serve a detrimental purpose?idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Scot wrote -- ---- and i have no idea why when i edit a comment those lovely backslashes appear. ---- I had the same problem on another blog. The solution is to avoid using the single- and double-quotes key and use the accent key instead. The accent key (the tilde ~ character shares this key) is at the far-left end of a standard US English desktop-computer keyboard, between the Tab key and the Esc key. Use this key once for apostrophes and single quote marks and use it twice for double quote marks. Depending on the blog, an unaccompanied accent mark may appear either as an apostrophe or an accent mark, but at least you won't get those annoying slashes. Here are the results on this blog -- 'single-quote key' vs. `accent key` "double-quote key" vs. ``repeated accent key``Larry Fafarman_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

idadvisors: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Teleology is the central concept in ID.Ã¢â‚¬Â From my few months of following this site, this is probably the best abstraction of ID I have heard yet. But at the same time, this conciseness acerbates what I see as an intrinsic weakness. We all know that there are many more deleterious mutations in nature than mutations than could potentially help in the survival of an individual (you have to have survival of the afflicted individual before you can translate that into survival of its species). As an example, think of cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. I read that John Davison claims that mutations only serve a detrimental purpose, but I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how this would be in the interest of ID. So what is the teleology behind these mutations? Is that within the realm of ID theory, or do we need to resort to philosophy/theology? If it is the latter, that sounds to me a bit like a cop-out.ofro_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

I discuss teleology in more detail at researchID.org. Soon (already)the benchmark for the intelligensia. (not me)idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

Scott' Teleology is the central concept in ID. (call them Orgelians) The information content in DNA instructs cells, organs and organism to achieve particular goals. Living things have inherent goal-direct behavior directing them to predetermined ends, which is for the sake of surviving in its given environment.idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

and i have no idea why when i edit a comment those lovely backslashes appear.Scott_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

What we need to do is clarify terms better. I don\'t think there\'s an ID proponent out there who denies that \"evolution\" occurred and still occurs. Evolution meaning change over time. The issue of course with the degree and the mechanisms involved and whether or not teleology played a role.Scott_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

First of all, I think it is low of Coyne to spew such bile against his opponents. Others make much clearer arguments against ID without resorting to personal attacks. If I may attempt to answer these questions: "Can you imagine Einstein reviewing a popular book by a journalist critiquing his general theory of relativity? Why does evolution need so much defending?" 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. By asking "Why does evolution need so much defending?" I can hear you implying that "evolution must be weak". The real reason it needs so much defending is because 50% of the population doesn't believe it. This is complicated because most of the American population have such weak scientific educations. As strong political factions and think-tanks attack evolution, it needs defending. The peers of Coyne, however, the ones that actually do the science, the ones that are in the labs, getting published in the literature, they need no convincing. It is only in the eyes of the laymen that the theory evolution seems so weak.Strangelove_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Is Coyne one of those journalists who routinely mischaracterize ID? That's why when I write I strive not to mischaracterized. I avoid statements like "Behe, the Director of Admissions at Lehigh University, argues..."idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Berlinski sure knows alot about random, stochastic events for a "science writer." I've read that his work has something to do with mathematics?idadvisors_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Size 101 How big am I? Isa 40:12 Ã‚Â¶ Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance? me..................a speck on earth earth...............a speck in the milky way milky way...........a speck in the universe universe............a speck in God's pocket From my perspective: Anything smaller than me is small. Anything bigger than me is big. ZeroZero_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

William Dembski said -- ---- Why does a giant of evolution, like Coyne, need to sully himself with an extended critical review of CoulterÃ¢â‚¬â„¢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? ---- I disagree that Coyne "sullied" himself by deigning to write an extended critical review of "Godless." The sheer popularity of the book made it worthy of the review.Larry Fafarman_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Learning biology from this lot is like learning elocution from George W. Bush no, Coyne has no political agenda, he's just a scientist...ajl_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

I have a question. Is the New Republic affirming one the basic premises of Coulter's book, namely that evolution is fundamentally a political issue espoused most vehemently by liberals. If not why wouldn't The New Republic allow an extended response by Bill, Steve Meyers or someone with a prominent association with ID? If they don't then they are essentially making Ann Coulter's case that Darwinism is a tenet of most liberal's thinking. I know that when this came up before many liberal readers of this site said it wasn't for them but is that the reality in general.jerry_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Oh you gotta love the emotional rhetoric coming from people like Coyne. It only helps the ID movement. Jerry, please keep up the good work. Oh and David Berlinski\'s credentials:
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. Recent articles by Dr. Berlinski have been featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. He is author of numerous books, including A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon 1996), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000, Harcourt Brace),.Newton\\\'s Gift (The Free Press 2000). Forthcoming are his books: The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (Harcourt, October 2003), A Short History of Mathematics for the Modern Library series at Random House (2004), and Einstein & Goedel: Friendship between Equals (Simon & Schuster 2004). He is currently working on a book analyzing genetic algorithms.
Scott_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

David Berlinski described only as "science writer" seems pretty bad to me. Is Coyne fooling himself or just outright lying to (or purposefully misleading, perhaps as he sees it for a noble cause) the public?Ben Z_{July 31, 2006
July
07
Jul
31
31
2006
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply