nightlight

Lest we forget

2007-06-06T09:23:00.000-07:00

With Mike Behe in the public consciousness once again with the release of his old-news book The Edge of Evolution, I thought it might be useful to revisit something he said in his Kitzmiller testimony.

Since it seems inevitable that this book will be touted by some as an addition to the DI's long list of "peer-reviewed" publications (one can only hope that Behe himself has learned his lesson on this score), let's take a moment to reflect on these comments under cross-examination from Dr. Behe,

“[t]here are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

No doubt the truth of this moment of clarity will be little altered by Behe's book.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled gap argument.

Gonzalez' tenure - Only mostly dead

2007-06-02T08:52:00.000-07:00

Okay, so that's over. Guillermo Gonzalez' appeal of his tenure denial has been turned down by Iowa State University president Gregory L. Geoffroy.

Well, not entirely over, since Gonzalez can file another appeal, this time with the university regents. But his tenure hopes, at least at ISU, are certainly looking very gray. And he can thank his buddies at the Discovery Institute for their help in ensuring that ISU denied him. They did their level best to publicly humiliate Gonzalez in the process of turning him into a martyr, and so created such a furor around his department that it was virtually certain he could never go back there. Now one has to ask oneself, what mainstream Astronomy/Physics department would have him?

And so another soldier for (some twisted form of) Christianity falls on his sword - or, more accurately, was shoved.

For my money, it was the DI itself, by way of its Wails and Moans webpage, that sealed the deal. In one entry which attempted to refute the suggestion that it was Gonzalez' inability to bring in funding that dropped him off the tenure radar, they produced evidence of his funding-finding success. This included three examples,

"2. Contrary to some reports, Dr. Gonzalez did receive outside grant funding during his time at ISU:

From 2001-2004, Dr. Gonzalez was a Co-Investigator on a NASA Astrobiology Institute grant for "Habitable Planets and the Evolution of Biological Complexity" (his part of the grant for this time period was $64,000).

From 2000-2003, Dr. Gonzalez received a $58,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation. This grant was awarded as part of a competitive, peer-reviewed grant process, and his winning grant proposal had been peer-reviewed by a number of distinguished astronomers and scientists.

Earlier in 2007, Dr. Gonzalez was awarded a 5-year research grant for his work in observational astronomy from Discovery Institute (worth $50,000)."

In an earlier post on this issue I said this: "In the consideration of possible tenure, ISU needs to (and I assume has), analyze the trajectory of Gonzalez' career and make an educated guess as to how much his theological proclivities might eventually distract from his academic obligations. They have every right, and responsibility to potential students, to do so." I still believe this to be the salient point considering Gonzalez' possible tenure, not his publication record or how many Ph.D. candidates he's produced. The university takes a significant risk when it grants tenure to a professor, and it is obligated to anticipate to the best of its ability whether a tenure applicant might be heading for the deep end. For a science instructor, the "deep end" can reasonably be characterized as excessive credulity regarding non-natural phenomena. In that light, let's look at the DI's examples of Gonzalez' ability to secure funding.

Co-Investigator on a NASA Astrobiology Institute grant for "Habitable Planets and the Evolution of Biological Complexity" (his part of the grant for this time period was $64,000). There nothing particularly alarming here, although in retrospect it's easy to see that this dovetails with his work on showing how privileged the Earth is - a credulous notion if ever there was one. Even more important, though, is the fact that the principle recipient of this grant was Peter Ward (UW), not Gonzalez. Gonzalez was a member of Ward's group which totaled over 50 people.
A $58,000 grant from the Templeton Foundation. The Templeton Foundation is well known for funding projects that they think might link spirituality and science in some grand metaphysical sense. This is from their Mission Statement - "The mission of the John Templeton Foundation is to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discovery in areas engaging life’s biggest questions. These questions range from explorations into the laws of nature and the universe to questions on the nature of love, gratitude, forgiveness, and creativity." This isn't an indictment, the TF does fund some legitimate science, but it's another provocative data point.
A 5-year research grant for his work in observational astronomy from Discovery Institute (worth $50,000). The DI hacks were so hard up for evidence that they included their own grant to Gonzalez in this very spare list. There is no question what the DI funds - religiously motivated investigation of evidence for "design."

Now being generous and accepting all of this on its face, not only is this meager amount of grant money ($172K) barely worth mentioning, there is clearly a trend here that would put any committee evaluating tenure on alert . If, in the process of determining suitability, an instructor's potential areas of focus are considered then certainly the examples above are cause for concern in granting tenure to a science professor. It's not Gonzalez' personal religious convictions that are the problem, it is his penchant for mixing them into his science (for God's sake, he included "The Privileged Planet" as part of his tenure application!). That's just bad science, and is, in my opinion, excellent cause for denial, especially as the arc of his career suggests it will only get worse.

Of course the DI shills will continue to whine about "academic freedom," as does the shrillest shill on this issue, John West...

“President Geoffroy has clearly demonstrated that academic freedom is not as important to Iowa State University as passing an ideological litmus test.”

...as even more of Gonzalez professional life is left in ashes on the funeral pyre. But clearly this isn't about Gonzalez' academic freedom, it's about the academic freedom of potential ISU students to be exposed to the best in science instruction, not someone's personal philosophy.

And in the end the "intelligent design" marketing machine will get something even more valuable to them than a tenured ID-touting professor. They'll have a continuing opportunity to build up those persecution points of which they are so enamored. Heck, maybe they'll convince G.G. to appeal to the ISU regents and keep this blustery bonanza going indefinitely.

After all, there might still be some life left in the poor guy.

Suburban Skeptic - How human are we?

2007-06-01T08:44:00.000-07:00

It is estimated that 5000 to 10000 different species of bacteria live in the human body (Sears, 2005). Bacterial cells are much smaller than human cells, and there are about ten times as many bacteria as human cells in the body (1000 trillion (10¹⁵) versus 100 trillion (10¹⁴); Sears, 2005).

The above, which clearly show me to wrong about the "number of cells" issue, is from Wikipedia.

Now it seems that estimates as to the number of cells in the human body vary quite widely, from Sears' 100 trillion to about 60 trillion to other more moderate guesses in the ten trillion range. Most sources seem to agree on the 100 trillion estimate.

As well, most sources I've looked at agree that there are about ten times (one suggested 20x) more symbiotic microbes hanging around in your body (mostly bacteria, and mostly in the gut) than there are human cells making up your body. I offer this distinction between "hanging around in" and "making up" because I was at least right about one thing: most of the human body is not symbiotic cells. By number, bacteria et al are greater, but these cells are so much smaller than most human cells that it is incorrect to suggest we are mostly microbes, especially when considered by percentage of mass. The only source I found that gave numbers on this indicated that bacteria in the human body could mass up to 2 kilos. This is about 3% of body weight for an average sized man (150 lbs.)

And here's another interesting tidbit from Dr. George Weinstock, co-director of the Human Sequencing Center at the Baylor College of Medicine,

"Even though a microbial genome is one-thousandth the size of the human genome, the total number of microbial genes in [the human] body is much greater than human genes because you have so many different species."

Even your humble skeptical servant learns something now and then (though he hates to admit it).

Brownback spins furiously

2007-05-31T08:03:00.001-07:00

The New York Times has an opinion piece written by Sam Brownback (running for Repub. nomination for presidential candidate) in which he, like Huckabee, tries to minimize the damage done subsequent to his fateful hand-raise.

A masterpiece of talking out of both sides of one's mouth, Brownback's "What I Think About Evolution" should be required reading for anyone preparing for a career in political obfuscation. Let's look at a bit of it:

"The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. But limiting this question to a stark choice between evolution and creationism does a disservice to the complexity of the interaction between science, faith and reason.

Seems reasonable enough, until one reads far enough to notice that, golly gee, Brownback says a lot of things that indicate he's a creationist, like,

The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

And

Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

And

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

And

The unique and special place of each and every person in creation is a fundamental truth that must be safeguarded. I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos. I firmly believe that each human person, regardless of circumstance, was willed into being and made for a purpose.

Maybe he just doesn't want to be called a creationist. It would certainly be utterly unsurprising to find that a politician wants to manipulate his image so as to offend as few voters as possible.

Then there's this fluffy bit of hot air,

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

Brownback believes, wholeheartedly mind you, that there cannot be any contradiction between faith and reason. However, as in the quotes immediately preceding this one, he seems to be willing to do a lot of rejecting of possible scientific conclusions if and when they come into conflict with his faith. Even so, he says again a few paragraphs later,

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves.

Indicating his willingness (wholehearted I presume) to accept the conclusions of science. But this is once more just a cynical nod to political expediency as he follows soon thereafter with,

It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. As science continues to explore the details of man’s origin, faith can do its part as well.

I see. So for Senator Sam, "as long as the facts of science don't contradict my faith, I'm willing, as should any rational person be, to accept the conclusions of science. Physics and cosmology are well left to scientists, but hey, when it comes to biology I think people of faith should have a place at the table." The sad thought is that this kind of nonsense will resonate with some.

And then we come to Brownback's stirring denoument of double-speak,

While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

Without hesitation, I am happy to raise my hand to that.

Now, is it just me, or is Sam happy to leave at least a few stones unturned? You know, like the ones that have something to say about whether Man ("M"?) was an accident or not?

Yeah, Sam's happy to accept that "The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates," and to "let the facts speak for themselves," as well as leave no stone "unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins." Sure, all of this is fine with him, as long as none of it undermines his personal concept of the "truth."

In other words, Senator Sam is full of shit.

Behe's back - Still deluded after all these years

2007-05-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

I like Michael Behe. There, I said it.

No, I've never met the guy, never even spoken with him. But I still have this impression of him as a kind of lovable puppy dog with no real axe to grind and no one with whom to even the score. Yes, he's wrong...way wrong. We all know this. But his wrongness seems to be more a product of limited capacity and unexpected celebrity than it is the result of some wretched desire to inflict his religious beliefs upon others. He has often struck me as accidentally swept up in the ID production, not really suited to the spotlight but enjoying it too much to demur from the attention - as incidents such as the astrology catastrophe in Dover suggest he should.

Although I tend to think he believes what he says, as I suspect most of the ID "theorists" do, he strikes me as less willing to descend into the depths of obfuscation and deception in service of those beliefs. But this is of little matter. His ideas are still an intellectual mess (and even if Behe is more restrained, many of his colleagues will be ready to shape them to the political needs of the moment), and they contribute to the ID movement's attacks on the integrity of science. After all, then, it remains that Behe is an important ID creationist. And even if he is severely confused about what the data say and what he is entitled to infer from those data, his confusion will inevitably be the inspiration for some credulous individuals to find their way to "intelligent design."

To that end, Behe has written another book codifying his confusion. This one is called "The Edge of Evolution" and is soon to be released. In support of the book, his publisher has presented a softball interview with Behe on its website. Let's see what Dr. Mike has to say:

Question & Answer with Michael J. Behe

What do you believe Darwinian evolutionary processes can actually do?

The Edge of Evolution asks the sober question, what is it reasonable to think Darwinian evolutionary processes can actually do? Unprecedented genetic data on humans and our microbial parasites (malaria, HIV, E. coli) now allow us to answer that question with some precision. The astonishing result is that, even under intense selective pressure, and given an astronomical number of opportunities, random mutation and natural selection yield only trivial, mostly degenerating changes. The bottom line: the major events that produced life on earth were not driven by random mutations.

A bottom line with which most biologists would concur. The "major events that produced life on earth" were driven by a combination of factors, certainly including random mutation, but in concert with selection and drift and other influences like lateral transfer and endosymbiosis. Random mutations are surely necessary for all these (and more) mechanisms to produce organismal complexity, but Behe is indulging a very tired creationist strawman when he attempts to tar evolutionary biology with the metaphysical scareword "random."

More important than this, though, is Behe's suggestion of the appropriate "sober question" in his first sentence. I happen to think the more sober question is, is it reasonable to infer supernatural phenomena when we think Darwinian evolutionary processes cannot produce something? Creationists, especially the ID kind, like to skip over this part of the argument, for obvious reasons.

The book's subtitle speaks of the "limits of Darwinism." Are you saying that Darwin's theory is completely wrong?

Not at all. It is an excellent explanation for some features of life, but it has sharp limits. Darwin's theory is an amalgam of several concepts: 1) random mutation, 2) natural selection, and 3) common descent. Common descent and natural selection are very well-supported. Random mutation isn't. Random mutation is severely constrained. So the process which produced the elegant structures of life could not have been random.

This is pretty confused. He appears on the one hand to be suggesting that random mutation does not exist, then on the other he says that it is constrained. Well, if it exists, as we all (including Behe) know it does, then there will be little disagreement with the notion that it is constrained.

Behe seems to want to say both that mutations that we think are random are not, and that random mutation is not sufficient to produce genetic diversity. So which is it? Does he think there must be another method by which intelligence intervenes or does he think that the mechanism is mutation, but some mutations are intelligently designed? His ideas, typically, are muddled.

And of course his conclusion in the last line does not in any way follow from that which precedes it.

How does the book evolve from the failure of randomness to the conclusion of intelligent design? Aren't there possible unintelligent evolutionary explanations other than Darwinism?

The new genetic results on humans and our parasites tell against not only Darwin's theory, but against any unintelligent process. In their reciprocal evolutionary struggle, human and parasitic genomes could have been altered in nature by whatever unintelligent mechanism had the ability to help. Yet virtually nothing did. Because the categories of "intelligent" and "unintelligent" processes are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, ruling out unintelligent processes necessarily implicates intelligence.

Against "any unintelligent process?" Did he just say what I think he said? Are all biological processes now intelligent? And how do we then evaluate any claim as to the discovery of an intelligent process?

And "virtually nothing did?" There were no natural mechanisms involved in the co-evolutionary development of humans and their parasites? Did he just say what I...oh never mind.

There is no better evidence of Behe's limited abilities than the above paragraph. It is utter nonsense from the first to the last.

What evidence speaks most clearly to the role of intelligent design in biology?

The elegance of the foundation of life -- the cell. Charles Darwin and his contemporaries supposed the cell was a "simple globule of protoplasm," a microscopic piece of Jell-O. They were wrong. Modern science reveals the cell is a sophisticated, automated, nano-scale factory. For example, the journal Nature marvels, "The cell's macromolecular machines contain dozens or even hundreds of components. But unlike man made machines, which are built on assembly lines, these cellular machines assemble spontaneously from their ...components. It is as though cars could be manufactured by merely tumbling their parts onto the factory floor."

No. Darwin and his contemporaries did not think the cell was a piece of Jello. This is another creationist canard. Then comes Behe's continuing fascination with biological structures as "machines" (and the strange ID suggestion that an analogy with flawed and limited human built machines suffices to demonstrate the influence of a transcendental designer). This business is foolishly misguided, as I have previously taken pains to point out.

How does intelligent design differ from the prevailing Darwinist view of evolution?

To a surprising extent prevailing evolutionary theory and intelligent design are harmonious. Both agree that the universe and life unfolded over vast ages; both agree that species could follow species in the common descent of life. They differ solely in the overriding role Darwinism ascribes to randomness. Intelligent design says that, while randomness does exist, its role in explaining the unfolding of life is quite limited.

This is more "randomness" marketing-speak that is quickly recognized as content free.

How does intelligent design differ from creationism? What do you say to critics who charge that it is merely "creationism in disguise"?

Intelligent design theory is to creationism as the Big Bang theory is to the book of Genesis. Although both intelligent design and the Big Bang may be reminiscent of some religious ideas about the universe and life, they are both grounded on the empirical study of nature, not on holy books. The phrase "Let there be light" may be evocative of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang is science, not scripture. Intelligent design may be compatible with some religious concepts, but the astounding intricacy of cellular molecular machinery is hard scientific data.

Behe is quite taken with the Big Bang. He spent his time on the stand in the Dover trial boring people with constant mention of it, he refers to it often in his public appearances, and he clearly believes it's invocation is a magic bullet straight to the heart of the ID=creationism=religion argument.

Now, as I understand it, “Big Bang” is a name for that set of physical and mathematical data that describes events which follow the moment of existence of the initial conditions that led to our universe. The “Big Bang” makes no statement about what may have preceded that moment (though it does, indeed, lead to speculation both scientific and not). It says nothing about causal agency, it comes to no conclusions about antecedent circumstances which could have led to the expansion. In other words, the theory describes natural (with an understanding that natural laws themselves were, at the time, coming into existence) events occurring in our observable reality.

The difficulty for Behe’s analogy here is obvious. Any determination of “design” in an object/artifact/system implicitly posits an antedating causal event. And any “scientific theory” which trumpets an inference of “intelligent design” is methodologically obligated to address that event.

The comparison with BB theory is instructive. Had physicists called it the Big Blueprint or the Grand Design or even the Mother-of-all-purposeful-arrangements-of-parts Behe’s argument might have merit. But physicists, as they are methodologically bound to do, describe, by use of the phrase the “Big Bang,” only those phenomena which can be supported by the evidence, leaving the philosophical and religious implications for other epistemologies.

If ID “theorists” had merely described their observations ("irreducible complexity, "specified complexity" etc.) without obvious and intentional reference to theological concepts - a designer - this dispute would have come down to matters of detail decided among scientists, not lawyers and politicians. But that, of course, would be equivalent to asking ID proponents not to be creationists.

Far from being analogical evidence denying the relationship of ID to creationism, the Big Bang actually stands as an instructive example of the difference between science and ideology.

Do you see intelligent design as a concept that provides a resolution to the creation vs. evolution debate? Is there ever a point where science and religion might meet in some form of compromise - and does intelligent design help to provide that answer?

In some ways intelligent design is the perfect middle ground between the scientistic atheism exemplified by Richard Dawkins and the dogmatic religious creation stories he rails against. Like the Big Bang theory and the discovery of the "fine-tuning" of the universe for life, intelligent design recognizes that empirical results from science point insistently to a reality greater than is dreamt of in Dawkins' philosophy. Yet, rather than relying on some holy text, ID comes to that conclusion through science -- from our own human intellect and the struggle to understand nature.

ID is a nice middle ground, for those who like that sort of thing, but it is not science. And it emphatically does not come to its only important conclusion (the existence of an intelligent designer) through scientific methodology, as it studiously avoids testing this hypothesis and simply assumes its evident truth.

How does your view of intelligent design in biology fit with the findings and theories of cosmology and physics?

The conclusion of intelligent design in biology fits very well with unexpected results in the past few decades from physics and astronomy, which show that the universe, its laws, physical constants, and many details, are "fine-tuned" for life on earth. For example, if the charge on the electron or the properties of water were much different, life as we know it would be precluded. Biology has now discovered that the fine tuning of the universe for life actually extends into life. The term "consilience" denotes the situation where results from several scientific areas point in the same direction, reinforcing our confidence that the conclusion is correct. Biology has attained consilience with results from cosmology and physics.

This is all quite silly of course, and certainly to be expected in this kind of promotional interview. But the very wishfulness of it all is what still amazes me after all this time criticizing ID and its proponents. Imbued in so many of their arguments is this kind of childlike desire for a safe and comforting universe, one in which all questions come pre-answered by a simple, mindless commitment to the notion of an empirically evidenced designer of everything.

Is it necessary to conclude that the designer is God?

"Necessary" is a strong word. It is not "necessary" in a compulsory sense. The scientific study of nature in the past century and especially the last few decades, however, points strongly to the conclusion that there exists an intelligent being who set up our universe for life: its physical laws, many of its astronomical properties and details, as well as many necessary details reaching deeply into life. In the teeth of that evidence a person such as Richard Dawkins is still free to think it was all one huge cosmic accident. Most people will decide God -- or some remarkable being -- is the most likely explanation.

It's "not "necessary" in a compulsory sense." Well, thank Designer for that! I'm still not ready to have my culture renewed. But of course even though it's not necessary it certainly is the obviously designed implication of ID "theory" (the denial of this remains the central deceit of the ID movement). There is no reason for ID to exist otherwise since natural investigations of intelligent activity, such as archeology, forensics and cryptography, have grown as scientific fields where warranted.

Why do you think there is such resistance within the scientific community to the idea of intelligent design?

Scientists are trained to think of the universe as a self-contained, self- explanatory system. Unexpected findings that go against that supposition can be disconcerting. When it was first proposed, the idea that the universe had a beginning in a big bang was strongly resisted by some scientists, because it pointed to a reality outside of the universe. Intelligent design of biology evokes even stronger reactions, perhaps because it challenges the supposition of a self-contained universe even more strongly.

"Scientists are trained to think of the universe as a self-contained, self- explanatory system." What Dr. Mike appears not to understand (no, I don't think he is being disingenuous, I really think he doesn't bother thinking beyond a very shallow, self-confirming perspective) is that science only works because it addresses the universe as a "self-contained, self- explanatory system." That means that if ID is true, which conceivably it might be, this cannot be confirmed scientifically. The supernatural is beyond science, and it is not "pointed to" either by the Big Bang or biology.

Scientists simply resist diminution of scientific efficacy by the attempted dismantling of its methodology. Just ask Ken Miller or Francisco Ayala if the have trouble with the idea of a "reality outside of the universe."

One criticism of ID has been that it makes no predictions, and thus is unscientific. Does The Edge of Evolution address this?

The Edge of Evolution is almost entirely concerned with the major, opposing predictions of Darwinism and ID. The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism's prediction is falsified; 2) Design's prediction is confirmed.

Mike Behe has trouble with a lot of concepts. "Prediction" is apparently one of those. He says, "ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop." Okay, this qualifies as a prediction only if it can be falsified. How would Behe respond to those who point to complex structures like, say, the flagellum, as having developed absent intelligent input? He says, of course, that they are intelligently designed, and then challenges biologists to prove him wrong.

This is not a prediction. This is nothing more than a shifting of the burden of proof founded on the assumption of his conclusion (a supernatural designing intelligence).

Are there lessons we can learn from the study of malaria and HIV to help us, as a species, protect ourselves from viral and parasitical threats? How might other fields, such as medicine, be affected by intelligent design?

One heartening conclusion of intelligent design is that Darwinian evolution is not the relentless, Borg-like process we had thought. Random evolution is clumsy and limited. That means that, even when fighting pathogens such as malaria that occur in enormous numbers, if science can find the right monkey wrench to throw in its molecular machinery, random mutation and natural selection will be helpless to circumvent it.

Hmm...so now antibiotics are evidence that life was intelligent designed? And here all this time I thought this was confirmation of the principles of evolutionary biology.

I suppose it's possible that resistance to this kind of specious rhetoric is futile, but I hope Behe will forgive us if we continue to rotate our shield frequencies in trying to hold off their assault upon science. After all, the future of the entire galaxy (okay, maybe just our little corner of it) is at stake.

The Suburban Skeptic - Red cars

2007-05-19T08:10:00.000-07:00

[Although they're not as ubiquitous or influential as urban legends, suburban legends offer two distinct debunking advantages: First - they have a way of finding me, and Second - they present a significantly less demanding challenge, the combination of which qualities generally allows my meager level of attention and effort to equal the task.]

Relatives are often a rich source of credulous notions. Probably one reason for which is that they are less likely to be guarded around family. I have a sister who is especially generous in this regard, often prompting cranky "What makes you think that?!" comments from more skeptical sorts (yeah, pretty much just from me, particularly the "cranky" part).

Recently we were discussing automobile insurance, as my wife and I are currently lucky enough to be in the position of needing to buy cars for both my kids. The car we're considering for my son is red. This elicited an observation from Sis that insurers charge more for red cars.

"Oh, they do not, that's nonsense," I responded tactfully. I thought she was probably extrapolating from common anecdotes about cops noticing and ticketing red cars more often, and said so. But she didn't budge. She had heard that red cars were insured at higher rates, no doubt because of their attraction to the police. And she's not the only one. The myth can readily be found online.

Well, of course in a situation like this Google is your friend. And I found what I was looking for,

"What about the car insurance rates question? Does your car insurance company use color to determine your premium? The answer is…no.

Some people have suggested that insurers use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to determine the car color and use that information, in part, to set the rate for each car. But the fact is car color is not one of the details encoded into a VIN number. So technically, unless they ASK you the color of your car when you buy your car insurance policy, they really have no idea what color it is. And thus has no affect on your rate."

This comes from a page at Insurance.com, where one can find other nifty discussions of what car color supposedly says about you (okay, so maybe this site isn't such an unimpeachable source) and stories about red cars suffering increased attention from the police.

However, the point remains that car insurance rates are not calculated based upon the color of the car. A fact confirmed here and here.

Another senseless travesty of truth averted. My work here is done.

Your humble servant - the Suburban Skeptic.

Gonzalez, tenure and academic freedom

2007-05-17T08:22:00.000-07:00

Does it make anyone else's irony-bone tingle to note that so many who regularly argue against supposedly entrenched, partisan interests in modern academia are now complaining that one of their own has been denied entrenchment?

Okay, maybe not. But to the matter at hand.

If you keep up with the doings on the ID/creationism front you'll have heard of the Gonzalez tenure flap. If not, go here.

Yes, that's Guillermo Gonzalez, somewhat-less-than-prominent-but-still well-known ID spokesman, being denied a tenured appointment at Iowa State University. And of course the ID crowd is all abuzz and up in arms about this travesty of justice. Gonzalez' appeal of the decision is under consideration so there is little news on this coming from the university, leaving the less restrained world of the internet (and the even less-than-that restrained world of ID public relations-speak) free to ramp up the hysteria.

Surprisingly, the least hysterical aspect of all of this seems to be Gonzalez' research record. There appears to be little question that he meets, in fact well exceeds, these particular requirements for tenure at Iowa State. It is true that his name appears on a significant number of multi-author publications but the impression remains that he has met this part of the tenure criteria.

This has led to (yawn) cries of persecution on the part of the Discovery Institute shepherds and assorted ID sheep. The five most recent articles (as of this writing) at the DI's Evolution Wails and Moan s all address this issue. "This is all about his position on ID," they whine (I paraphrase), "their taking away his academic freedom."

And you know what? They may be a wee bit right. But they're still way wrong.

There are other considerations involved in awarding tenure, some of them far less straightforward than collating and counting publication stats, that are important to understand. Consider this from the ISU site describing general tenure policies:

Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom, to explore all avenues of scholarship, research, and creative expression and to speak or write as a public citizen without institutional discipline or restraint. Academic responsibility implies the faithful performance of academic duties and obligations, the recognition of the demands of the scholarly enterprise, and the candor to make it clear that the individual is not speaking for the institution in matters of public interest.

Tenure is the keystone for academic freedom; it is essential for safeguarding the right of free expression and for encouraging risk-taking inquiry at the frontiers of knowledge. Both tenure and academic freedom are part of an implicit social compact, which recognizes that tenure serves important public purposes and benefits society. The public is best served when faculty are free to teach, conduct research, provide extension/ professional practice services, and engage in institutional service without fear of reprisal or without compromising the pursuit of knowledge and/or the creative process.

While this may at first seem to support the creationists' case that Gonzalez should have been granted tenure, a brief consideration of these ideas in depth will show how the ISU decision was the responsible one.

"Academic freedom is the freedom to discuss all relevant matters in the classroom." Obviously the key word here is relevant. Now academic relevance is not equivalent with public and political relevance, at least not in science. Some of Gonzalez hypotheses, and certainly all of his arguments in favor of ID, are drawn from without the frame of methodological naturalism. They are not scientific, they are not relevant in the academic sense. As such, then, it is the responsibility of the university, indeed of any institution of learning, to restrict the scope of an instructor's curriculum to that which is appropriate.

In the consideration of possible tenure, ISU needs to (and I assume has), analyze the trajectory of Gonzalez' career and make an educated guess as to how much his theological proclivities might eventually distract from his academic obligations. They have every right, and responsibility to potential students, to do so.

"Tenure is the keystone for academic freedom; it is essential for safeguarding the right of free expression and for encouraging risk-taking inquiry at the frontiers of knowledge." "Risk-taking." Does this include the hypothesis that intervention by a transcendental designer might be somehow responsible for physical laws, or the current configuration of our solar system, or various biological structures? Is that what is meant by tackling the frontiers of knowledge? Of course not.

The only way to extend the frontiers of knowledge is to deal with falsifiable hypotheses. Postulation of intervention by a methodologically inaccessible entity is not risk-taking, it is risk-avoidance. It is an unwillingness to accept the possibility of a natural explanation because of personal preconceived ideas that may be deemed to be in epistemological jeopardy.

Gonzalez perspective is the very antithesis of the kind of academic freedom the granting of tenure is meant to ensure. It is the introduction of a detour from scientific inquiry: i.e., "If you need to know anything beyond this particular data point - consult (your favorite theological resource here)." This is not genuine intellectual risk-taking because it has no potential for delivering empirical understanding.

This is a seriously irresponsible position to adopt in the course of science instruction. And considering that Gonzalez, or any tenure applicant, might tend this way is a non-trivial part of the gamble ISU, or any university, takes when evaluating prospective awards.

"Both tenure and academic freedom are part of an implicit social compact, which recognizes that tenure serves important public purposes and benefits society." Any publicly employed instructor at any level who introduces ID (not conventional intelligent design from, say, archeology or forensics) breaks this implied social compact by attempting to promulgate his religion. Short of a signed statement from Gonzalez renouncing any professional association with ID and the ID movement there is no other course Iowa State could have responsibly taken.

There are universities where Gonzalez' ideas and affiliations might not only be accepted, but welcomed enthusiastically (Biola comes to mind). But any serious institution of higher education has a contract with its students, its community and the academic community at large to protect the honest and free pursuit of knowledge, not to pander to veiled religious ideology.

Despite the obvious necessity of this denial decision, it's clear it was not without political repercussions. Commendations to ISU for integrity in serving the social compact.

Another lap around the "Is ID religion?" track

2007-05-11T08:03:00.000-07:00

Here's Casey Luskin on those who "misunderstand" the nature of ID (so many of us do, you know).

Despite Holden's editorializing, ID is not creationism because creationism always postulates a supernatural creator, and/or is focused on proving some religious scripture. But intelligent design does neither. As a passage from the early pro-ID textbook Of Pandas and People explains, there is “intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot.… All [ID] implies is that life had an intelligent source.” (Pandas, 2nd ed., pgs. 127, 161). ID does not postulate a supernatural creator, and it is not focused on proving any kind of religious scripture.

Here's Luskin on the second part of a paper about giraffe evolution (or not) by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Lönnig claims to be using methodology guided by "intelligent design").

Lönnig has now written part 2 of his refutation of this evolutionary tall tale, where he now shifts the focus away from paleontology and on to giraffe anatomy, diet, behavior, and zoology, tackling evolutionary hypotheses about giraffe origins. [...] Lönnig suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for those investigating giraffe research, and these questions demonstrate he is right.

Here's the Acknowledgements section (#13) of Lonnig's paper (note the last line).

I would like to thank Professor Granville Sewell, Mathematics Department of the University of Texas El Paso for the English translation of Part 2 of this giraffe paper. Mr. Roland Slowik prepared the figure showing the simultaneity of the genera. Dr. Wolfgang Engelhardt (physicist, Munich) gave me the German translation of the book of G. R. Taylor The Great Evolutionary Mystery as a present. Last (and of course) not least, I thank the One without whom there would be no giraffes (Revelation 4:11).

It's becoming almost axiomatic that the most reliable refutation of ID propaganda is to be found in the arguments of ID's own "theorists" and proponents.

Now reasonable Republicans at least know who not to vote for

2007-05-03T20:29:00.000-07:00

I'm not big on linking to video from other sites, nor am I usually interested in quick hits without much in the way of analysis, but Crooks and Liars has a clip from tonights Republican debates that pretty much speaks for itself.

As noted on that page, that's Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and Mike Huckabee raising their hands in answer to a query about whether any of the assembled candidates do not believe in evolution. Kudos to McCain for answering that he does accept evolution will be withheld until I learn the nature of his requested extension of remarks (obviously I missed the debate).

A good question is whether there were others among the candidates who deny evolution but were dishonest enough to keep their hands down (What do you say, Mitt?). An even better question is whether the evolution question will be asked of the Democratic candidates, and how many of them will be willing to go on record.

Bill Moyers - Invariably a thoughtful perspective

2007-04-27T17:48:00.000-07:00

Here are some snippets from an interview with Bill Moyers on The Christian Century website. I've always found him to be clear, concise and particularly thoughtful when it comes to broad commentary on the American political system. Yes, he's liberal (as am I) but it's liberalism that derives from experience and insight, not knee-jerk reaction.

Two questions and answers stood out to me:

If the Bush administration were to ask you for your advice, what would you say to them?

Well, I did give President Bush advice once: on a broadcast I urged him to make Al Gore head of homeland security—in other words, turn our response to the terrorist attacks into a bipartisan effort, make the fight against terroism an American cause, not a partisan battle cry.

What would I say now? Fire the ideologues and assign them to scrub the floors at Guantánamo for penitence. Stop confusing neocon pundits with Old Testament prophets. Read the Bible for humility's sake, but for policy's sake commit to memory the report of the Iraq Study Group. Don't sacrifice any more soldiers to prove you're in charge; get the soldiers out of the line of fire between Sunnis and Shi'ites. And remind your hirelings of Winston Churchill's definition of democracy as the occasional necessity of deferring to the opinions of other people.

I'm not so sure Gore would have worked in that capacity, but I can definitely get behind Moyers' evaluation of the Bush administration's ideology-driven policies.

Some people on the left think the Democratic Party needs to be more explicitly religious. What do you think about that counterstrategy?

If you have to talk about God to win elections, that doesn't speak well of God or elections. We are desperate today for cool thinking and clear analysis. What kind of country is it that wants its politicians to play tricks with faith?

Amen.

(Hat tip to Blog from the Capitol)

You can't swing a dead flagellum without hitting a Steve

2007-04-26T12:45:00.000-07:00

Project Steve, the National Center for Science Education's (NCSE) tongue-in-cheek answer to Discovery Institute's "Scientists who dissent from Darwinism" list has just recorded its 800th signatory. With the DI's last count coming in at 700 just a short while ago it would appear that the point about the virtual ubiquity of acceptance of evolutionary biology among scientists remains untouched by creationists (ID or otherwise).

No folks, there is no controversy.

More on lists.

And see the entry - 700 scientists - on this site's ID Glossary.

The shape of Darwin's nose

2007-04-11T21:12:00.000-07:00

Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute has blogged about sub-optimal design in an entry titled "Darwin's Nose." This relates to the following statement (made by Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray on the subject of the creator's involvement in the minutiae of human biological origins):

“Will you honestly tell me that the shape of my nose was ordained and guided by an intelligent cause?”

Darwin's remark prompts Chapman to characterize his understanding of religion as "rather puerile," which comment, aside from the irony involved in an ID proponent expressing disdain for the sophistication of someone else's religious acumen, suffers from the indignity of being directly contradicted by the article to which Chapman links:

Dr Alison Pearn, assistant director of the Darwin Correspondence Project, said: "There is a great deal of subtlety about Darwin's thinking on religion. Like most people, he didn't necessarily think the same thing at all times. He was prepared to say things in correspondence that he wouldn't say in print. So there is immense value in making the complete texts available."

But let's look past Chapman's lack of insight and concentrate on the argument he attempts to draw from Darwin's skepticism regarding the "design" of his rather large schnozz,

The existence of what appears to be sub-optimal design [is] a sad argument that cannot be evaluated scientifically. There is nothing in the scientific question of design to suggest that the source of design had to have our particular understanding of optimal design in mind. What appears sub-optimal at one time (the appendix, for example, turns out later to have had serious functionality. Furthermore, considerations of beauty (noses, female girth, etc.) are often products of culture, not science. Flaws in nature, likewise, do not disprove design.

I'm not a big fan of "bad design" arguments. As used by critics of ID they tend, in my opinion, to have little more effect than to reinforce the notion that the quality and process of design identification is a legitimate subject for discussion. It isn't. As I've said previously, this cannot be a reasonable course unless and until the logic of any inference to design is demonstrated a priori. Such demonstration requires an investment of time and effort that goes beyond anything ID proponents currently offer. And why shouldn't this be the case? Such an investment would surely not serve their purposes. It is virtually certain that any comprehensive program that rigorously categorizes and identifies those qualities of design that would allow us to make a legitimate analogical inference would merely sustain the notion that the only such inference possible would be to that of empirically demonstrable agency (like humans).

In other words, looking deeply into the issue of design will only ground the endeavor in the natural universe. And that dog just wont hunt the kind of prey the ID movement hopes to bag.

But even though I don't believe "bad design" arguments work broadly in favor of ID criticism, that doesn't mean they don't apply in a discussion where "design" itself has been granted. And in this case, they definitely don't work to the advantage of ID proponents.

Consider the inherent contradiction in Chapman's points above, beginning with - "The existence of what appears to be sub-optimal design [is] a sad argument that cannot be evaluated scientifically. There is nothing in the scientific question of design to suggest that the source of design had to have our particular understanding of optimal design in mind." A discussion of "design" of any kind includes assumptions. The word cannot be invoked without automatically calling up issues like purpose and process (which themselves are related). These ideas are integral to the concept of design: a product of intent, an act of deliberation. The real puerility occurs when Chapman, or someone echoing this argument, tries to suggest that he can infer design where it suits his purpose, but demur from it when convenient by suggesting that it might be some sort of design that is entirely unknown to us, one not consonant with "our particular understanding."

But "our particular understanding" is the only one available to us. "Our particular understanding" is all that the "scientific question" can address because our (human) kind of design is all that we know. It is simply not logically tenable to suggest that one knows enough about a specific act or object to call it "design" without a fundamental reliance upon "our particular understanding" of design. There is no other understanding of design. To imagine such a thing is to imagine something that cannot be so called, because it does not rely upon those properties that characterize something as "design."

"Our particular understanding" is that upon which Chapman bases his supposed scientific inference to design, yet is also the thing he is willing to reject when the consequences of a design designation are seen as disadvantageous.

I know I'm belaboring this point, but I see it as one of those semantic obstacles (much like trying to define "supernatural") that is casually ignored but is foundational to the discussion. ID advocates' use of "design" is as conveniently ambiguous as their incessant references to "intelligence." At its essence it is little more than a synonym for supernatural. Employed this way, it becomes possible to craft such sophistry that suggests they can identify design while never having to stand on any of the obligations inherent in such an identification, some of which run to the purpose of the design. This may legitimately include evaluations of design quality (good, bad, optimal, sub-optimal) because any inference to design "by definition" makes reference to purpose.

If their investigation of "design" was born of an honest instinct for discovery, rather than a desire to fill gaps in our knowledge with their God, all of this would be plain as the nose on Darwin's, or Bruce Chapman's face. Unfortunately, those in the ID movement appear to be incapable of looking that far.

"Framing? Hey, that's our turf!"

2007-04-10T08:12:00.000-07:00

I note with bemused irony William Dembski's indignation over attempts by pundits to advise scientists on ways to resist the growing influence of pseudo-sciences, including ID creationism. In general, the advice runs to the idea of properly "framing" the issues such that those to whom one's arguments are directed are contextually prepared to understand them.

Well now someone with Dembski's high standards can brook none of this concept-tailoring, and his post on the subject receives a title imbued with classic Dembski petulance - “Framing Science” — Because the masses cannot be reasoned with but must be manipulated."

I have little problem with scientists who are engaged in these debates making use of reasonable rhetorical strategies for getting across their message with clarity and brevity. In fact I think it's high time those on our side started thinking in these terms. Why? Because this tactic - taken to a duplicitous extreme - is what the IDers have been up to all along. And this is, of course, the source of my bemusement at Dembski's pique.

I've spent a fair amount of time documenting the marketing strategies of the ID movement in posts here on this blog and in more focused papers dealing directly with this theme. I have also developed a glossary of terms to help with the inevitable befuddlement brought on by excessive exposure to ID-speak.

Manipulation? By our side?

Please.

A new Dembski Foreward - Characteristically backward

2007-04-07T19:12:00.000-07:00

William Dembski has once again taken time from his busy ID research schedule to write the Foreward for a colleague's upcoming book. As has become characteristic of Dembski's writing in recent years, there is far less here than meets the eye. He begins with a pointless story about winning the lottery against long odds and being surprised about insinuations that such a feat was engineered. Apparently the payoff for paying attention this far is the following:

Many scientists, when confronted with the possibility that life and the universe were designed, react in the same way as you did when confronted with the possibility that you somehow engineered winning the lottery. According to them, there is no evidence of design in the universe. Rather, the best evidence is that everything proceeds by unbroken natural laws. Accordingly, nature at bottom is nothing more than matter, energy, and the forces by which these interact. In short, nature works out its destiny purely by chance and necessity and not by design.

If you can ignore the rather sleazy (though by now well expected) conflation of scientific methodology with philosophical naturalism there's not much here with which to quibble.

But even though you would be right to dismiss a reporter who suggested that you had somehow “designed” winning the lottery, you would be wrong to side with materialistic scientists who regard the universe as exhibiting no evidence of design.

In fact, you would be quite prudently adopting the only default position available to one who considers these issues rationally. "Design," in the ponderously labored vernacular of ID proponents, includes so many unevidenced, unwarranted and unwise assumptions that merely speaking the word prejudices any conversation about universal or biotic origins. It is a loaded term, and it has been deliberately loaded by those pushing a religious agenda.

In the last forty years, advances in our understanding of cosmology and biology, especially molecular biology, have pointed up just how inadequate materialistic theories are in accounting for the appearance of design throughout the universe.

"Advances in our understanding of cosmology and biology" is, of course, ID-speak for "Lacunae in cosmological or biological knowledge that we have identified as appropriate gaps in which to stuff our designer and which we will push in service of our avowed intention to dismantle current scientific methodology."

In reply, scientists committed to materialism would say that the appearance of design in the universe is only an appearance, and that when we really understand the underlying science, we’ll see that there is no actual design. Such a dismissal of design, however, rings untrue. When Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, in River Out of Eden, writes “The illusion of purpose is so powerful that biologists themselves use the assumption of good design as a working tool,” one is right to start wondering if the appearance of design in nature is really only an athis pointppearance.

Only if one is overly credulous. And as to the previous point, I have to disagree with Richard Dawkins (and others who advance this view). I don't think the "illusion" of purpose is powerful at all, nor do I even concede that there is such an impression. There is an appearance of integration, and interactivity, and sometimes even complexity. There is an overwhelming sense of natural profligacy and creativity. But there is no appearance at all of purpose, or intelligent intent, or "design."

This "appearance of design" is a meme that simply must be eradicated. It contributes to the confidence of creationists, and the level of difficulty in appropriately framing the discussion for those who are fence-sitting.

In fact, the best scientific evidence now strongly confirms that design in the universe is real.

Well, at least Dembski's not being coy here, so let me do likewise: The above is an outright lie. This is an accusation I try very hard not to make, but there is just no way that Dembski can make this assertion in good faith. At best one might say "Looked at from a certain perspective...," or "Some evidence suggests a different interpretation...," or, heck, even just an "I think that..." But nobody who is as familiar with the arguments, counterarguments and especially the huge disparity in the number of scientists supporting the respective positions as Dembski can make this argument sincerely.

He knows it is not true that "the best scientific evidence" confirms that design is real, he is simply lying for political gain.

This volume will help you sort through that evidence. But it does more. It situates the scientific debate over theories of intelligent design and unintelligent evolution within a broader philosophical and cultural conversation. The list of contributors is superb, the scope of the contributions is comprehensive, and the topic is absolutely central to understanding the struggle for people’s hearts and minds. If you want to know what’s driving the culture war, read this book.

It's pretty clear what, and who, is driving the culture war. Perhaps if they spent more time with both hands on the wheel the truth might not suffer so much collateral damage.

Out of bullets -- throw gun -- run

2007-04-02T09:51:00.000-07:00

Michael Egnor is taking a lot of heat. He deserves it, of course, but to this point I have not contributed. I am far more interested in discussing the overarching assumptions people like Egnor make than the bits of scientific (antibiotic resistance) or historical (eugenics, Nazis etc.) minutiae they periodically offer up. These are delaying tactics and border skirmishes in the larger battle and they usually end with the creationist being handed his hat on the data or having to slide helplessly into solipsism.

The larger issue, for me, is how and why peole like Egnor comes to believe what they believe, and how they manage the rational defense of those beliefs. Are their ideas consistent or do they quickly devolve into self-contradictory incoherence? Are the arguments truly connected logically and/or empirically or are there inherent assumptions that are glossed over? Do they tend to lose the plot of discussion fairly rapidly, descending into misdirection (movement of goalposts), pleas of persecution, and accusative association (e.g. Darwinists are atheists)?

With his latest blog, Egnor has caused me to take notice. Amazingly, he's gone from 60 to Zero (the decline in argumentation I speak of above) rather faster than most. The shiniest gem from this post's collection of silliness is the following stunningly sophisticated dismissal of materialism:

Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.

[I'm often struck by how the apparently differing levels of thoughtfulness between people can be accounted for by this observation: It's not that we don't all think stupid things at times, it's that some of us have the common sense to recognize those stupidities for what they are; insufficiently informed conceits, and consequently keep them under wraps.]

There are some other examples of Egnor's ignorance in the blog, such as,

Those who claim that randomness can generate biological complexity seem to lack an understanding of the vastness of what statisticians call “combinatorial space.”

and,

If a “random” origin of biological complexity were shown scientifically to be true, I’d have no problem with it, as a scientist or as a Christian. I’d just figure that it was one more of God’s designs that's opaque to me.

But the best part comes at the end:

What if intelligent design were shown to be right, by scientific evidence? Most atheists would feel their faith in materialism greatly endangered, if not untenable. I suspect that is the cause for all their vitriol. Is Darwinism true? I’ll believe it if I see it. Is intelligent design true? Atheists won’t see it, because they won’t believe it.

So, is he channeling Nimoy? You know, in that episode where Spock fries an android's brain by telling it "I'm lying." I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but if ID were shown to be right "by scientific evidence" wouldn't that be supportive of materialism by its use of an operationally materialistic tool - methodological naturalism? [Of course this ignores the obvious fact that intelligent design is an uncontroversial materialistic inference, we see it all the time in archeology and forensics.] Presumably this twisted knot of rhetoric is meant to distract us so that he can steal a spaceship and make good his escape.

And then we come to it, the "vitriol" argument. At least Egnor started out with something resembling (however remotely) science, as opposed to other ID hacks who sing "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me" with every whining press release. How quickly we've gone from discussion of ID "theory" to "Why do you all hate and persecute us so?" Never mind that it is science that is being attacked from without (school boards) and within (i.e., "methodological naturalism is narrow and restrictive"). This is all just another version of the complaint of militant Christians which I usually paraphrase as "Why do you unfairly discriminate against us by keeping us from pushing our religion upon you?"

Of course Egnor finishes with the now standard bout of creationist projection, in effect saying he is the one with the open mind, and those nasty evilutionists (atheists, of course) just aren't intellectually open enough to see the forest ("I know there's only one tree, but if you just believe in the forest first, you'll see it!").

My thanks to Michael Egnor for helping to elucidate the arc of ID argumentation. Sometimes the descent happens so quickly it makes your head spin.

Design, by any other name... - New article over at CIDW

2007-03-29T23:15:00.000-07:00

I have a new article up over at CIDW (CSICOP's Creation & Intelligent Design Watch site) that I hope you'll take the time to check out. It's called Design, by any other name..., and it's a reflection of my feeling that to acquiesce even to the "appearance of design" is to give the design inference far more credence than it deserves.

And this seemed like a good occasion to scratch out another ID 'Toon. If it seems a bit cryptic, a read of the aforementioned article should clear the confusion.

ID 'Toons #6 - "Wherefore?"

Ironic...ironicer...ironicest?

2007-03-28T06:50:00.000-07:00

It will not be at all surprising to anyone familiar with these issues that creationists are capable of astounding levels of self-deception, but it is in the projection of their flaws that they appear to truly excel. The head-slapping, jaw-dropping degrees of irony that can be reached in these exchanges often leave one speechless. For the most part, the word “irony” is sufficient to capture the circumstance (wags often invoke the ill-fated “irony-meter,” a mythical contraption that is often taxed to, and beyond, its limits by creationist logic).

But some bouts of hypocrisy strain the concept such that it may compel orthographers and lexicographers to create a word that goes beyond “irony.” For an example, let's consider Answers in Genesis' (AiG) soon to open Creation Museum.

This is not going to be some middling effort such as the Institution for Creation Research’s (ICR) little museumette in Santee California or Kent Hovind’s loopy Dinosaur Adventure Land. This is big time entertainment, complete with “a series of huge model dinosaurs, built by the former head of design at Universal Studios, which are portrayed as existing alongside man, contrary to received scientific opinion that they lived millions of years apart” according to one news release. This museum is projected to cost about 25 million (US) and is being touted as “the world's first significant natural history collection devoted to creationist theory.”

AiG has worked hard to put on display the best and most rigorous of creationist "scholarship." According to their website, “Although the Bible gives the ‘big picture’ of what happened and when it happened, we’ve taken on the huge challenge of bringing that picture to life. Although the Bible isn’t specific about a lot of these things, we’ll take what we do know from observation of today’s world and the history in Genesis, and combine it with lots of ‘sanctified imagination’ (based on biblical principles).” Said Ham, who expects to expose not just the converted but the curious to his version of natural history, "The evolutionary elite will be getting a wake-up call."

Now, although the foregoing may be enough to produce some mild vertigo it only hints at the dizzying heights of irony to follow. For also to be found on the AiG site is Who’s transforming our society? The amazing legacy of an ET populist by Gary Bates. This 2005 article bewails the funding and development of Erich von Daniken’s (yes, the Chariots of the Gods guy) huge “Mystery Park” in Switzerland (the park has since closed). Why was this a problem for evangelicals? Apparently the park was a “project that discredits the God of the Bible with nonsense” (does this leave one free to assume that Bates is happier when the God of the Bible is discredited with sense?). Von Daniken, according to Bates, “believes that the God/god(s) worshipped in the Bible and other religions drove a flying saucer, supposedly witnessed by Ezekiel during his vision in Ezekiel 1:1–28.” This notion, along with other “way out ideas” comprises a corpus of concepts that Bates fretfully admits he assumed “would fade away."

The whole idea of this park was just too much for Bates who, without a hint of irony, refers to the Mystery Park as a “worrisome transformation of fantasy into fact.” He goes on to say, “I am distraught at the enormous amounts of money that von Däniken was able to raise…” And von Daniken is not the sole transgressor. Apparently only the AiG museum can claim the wholesome bearing of theological neutrality, for according to Bates, “Unlike evolutionary museums and theme parks, AiG’s museum is not backed by major corporations or millions of ET believers worldwide, eager to see their religious views transform society.”

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. Some events are so extreme as to defy parody. And some words simply cannot capture the stupefying reality of utterly blissful ignorance. "Irony" just doesn't seem to cover it. I think, in order to crack this particular nut, the orthographers are going to have to go beyond mere professional expertise.

Perhaps if they mix in a little “sanctified imagination…?”

Just say it, you don't have to actually mean it

2007-03-27T10:23:00.000-07:00

From the March 20th Daily Times.

Global warming panel makeup questioned
By Nicole Gaudiano
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON -- House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming -- but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

"I said, 'John, I can't do that,' " Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, 'Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.'"

Gilchrest didn't make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue. Republican moderates, called the Tuesday Group, invited Boehner to this week's meeting to push for different representation.

Anyone else's blood boiling yet? No? Well, I suppose we're all becoming pretty inured to this sort of thing. Of course to be fair this may be as much an example of political gamesmanship as Anthropogenic Global Warming denialism, but it's certainly of a piece with current GOP attitudes toward science.

Boehner's spokesman Brian Kennedy said he doesn't comment on the private conversations Boehner has with members of his conference, but "the only criteria set for potential members of the panel was that they must undertake a thorough review of the facts, the empirical data and the science to determine how Congress can craft the best possible legislation going forward."

Okay, now that's standard issue CYA politics. In other words, a lie all prettied up for public consumption.

"Roy Blunt said he didn't think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming," Gilchrest said. "Right there, holy cow, there's like 9,000 scientists to three on that one."

Close enough for jazz, but not, apparently, government work.

Fish...barrel...(bang!)

2007-03-24T08:32:00.000-07:00

I'm sure by this time most of us who keep track of the maunderings of ID hacks are barely moved by the consistently low level of commentary they produce. I suppose it's a kind of neural adaptation, like becoming habituated to a particular odor or sound, that allows us to get on with life without suffering incessant bouts of indignation.

But now and then the jaw drops, the head shakes, and the sensory adaptive bar is raised as a new standard for intolerability is set. Such is the occassion for this blog entry, wherein we have a new winner in the category of hypocrisy.

Robert Crowther (who has been posting as an ID shill for several years but who's commentary has been so utterly empty I don't think I've ever mentioned his name before) has offered us a delicious bit of rhetorical slapstick beginning about a week ago with a post on IDtheFuture called Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life? Note that this is essentially an advertisement for DI fellow Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler - Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany.

Now fast forward to Crowther's comments yesterday in a blog about how the poor persecuted ID movement is being put upon by some science department professors at SMU who wish to block their rental of a university hall for the purposes of holding one of their Darwin vs. Design conferences. Crowther writes:

The Dallas Morning News is reporting the current view of academic freedom amongst scientists protesting the conference:
While some who are leading the protest acknowledge the need for free speech and academic freedom, they say this event doesn't qualify.
Some speech should be freer than other speech, apparently. The DMN also reports that "[o]ther biologists compared the conference to a presentation by Holocaust deniers." Well, that settles it then, as we've quickly arrived at that productive point in the debate where one side accuses the other of being Nazis. So much for civil discourse on intellectual issues.

(The mind reels as the jaw drops and the head shakes in astonishment).

Except for the minor annoyance presented by having to continually revise downward my estimation of their reasoning faculties, these guys are just too easy.

Dembski, Descent and discrimination

2007-03-21T08:46:00.000-07:00

It's not news that what we get from William Dembski these days seldom amounts to more than childish sarcasm and ridicule. In the latest installment of his bitter resentments he quotes a passage from Darwin's Descent of Man, then offers his observations:

"Every now and again when I want to feel good about our shared humanity, I curl up with Darwin’s DESCENT OF MAN and read passages like the following:
The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ’struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.” – Charles Robert Darwin, The Descent of Man, Great Minds Edition, 123
What a great mind, indeed. What a wonderful human being. What a marvelous vision of the human family."

What a tool.

Dembski's indulgence here in cartoon creationism's "evilution" style of argumentation is, of course, predictably shallow and sophomoric. There is no doubt that Darwin cited this passage from William Greg with approbation, but it is part of a larger context. This context includes Darwin's concern that natural selection, which he did appear to consider capable of producing progress and improvement in nascent man, was no longer able to weed out the less fit in a modern age where we do all we can to alleviate suffering and ameliorate disease and disfunction.

In other words, Darwin foresaw unsettling trends in his society:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment...Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. (Descent, 159)

Perhaps it is hard for some, in this day, to understand the clinical aspect of these thoughts. We are used to such things being couched in scientific or demographical jargon. It's important to remember that Darwin is making observations here, not recommending actions. And these observations have been repeated by contemporary pundits. But this point is of little consequence. There is no denying that Darwin believed some things that today we consider anathema. Darwin did see racial divisions of man as being representative of innate capacity in some cases, and Darwin did have some sympathy for ideas we associate with eugenics.

The usual defense when these facts are used to promote Darwin's iniquity is that he was a product of his times, as are we all. This is such a reasonable, obvious point it seems one should not have to make it. But we are dealing with irrational individuals (ID proponents) with an agenda to advance.

However, I'd like to take the point and extend it. We all harbor ideas that, when viewed from distance (time or space) may fairly be considered unworthy. I, for instance, live in southern California where there is ever-bubbling sentiment against illegal immigrants. These arguments are intertwined with perspectives on Mexicans as a people and bigotry inevitably plays a role in the arguments. I try very hard to separate these notions but I have noticed, as I drive the streets or watch the news, that sometimes my darker instincts have been kindled.

In a similar example (with perhaps less willingness for self-examination), I would suggest it is likely that Dembski and most (all?) of his ilk consider homosexuality a perversion. As with my unwanted bigotry, there are reasons people develop such detestable beliefs. In their case it is obeisance to a particular Faith that causes them to devalue some segment of humanity. In both of our cases I'm confident posterity will view our respective prejudices as primitive and unconstructive.

But would it view us as malicious - as Dembski implies, and many of his cohorts openly assert, of Darwin? Not necessarily. Malice, or "evil" if you will, enters the equation when we attempt to act on our bigotry. It is one thing to hold a prejudiced view of a people (indigent, Mexican, homosexual) but it is quite another to turn that prejudice into active intolerance. To the degree I support legislation against immigration based upon ethnicity (I don't) I would be advancing a malicious position. To the degree Dembski and his pals actively campaign against gay rights, or support legislation limiting those rights, they are advancing "evil."

So what, then, was Darwin's position regarding the consequences of his arguments about the "weak"? How would he have acted upon them? Well, just a few pages earlier than where Dembski came across his smarmy bit of confirmation bias we find this:

The surgeon may harden himself while performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. (Descent 159-160)

Maybe Dembski slept through that part.

Does anyone else wonder...

2007-03-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

...how Casey Luskin sleeps at night?

This is a guy who, when he co-founded and headed up the IDEA (Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness) club at U.C. San Diego said:

"Obviously, the question comes up, 'Who is the designer?' Well, the leadership [of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) clubs] will promote the viewpoint that the God of the Bible is the designer." - Evolution critics meet to create strategy, The Plain Dealer, 07/29/02

Yet he manages to whine bitterly when critics of ID imply that the motivation and basis for the "intelligent design" movement is religious.

This is a guy who accused UCSD of indoctrinating incoming freshmen by making mandatory their attendance at a Robert Pennock lecture without bothering to check whether his facts were accurate (they weren't) and then, in a fit of stunning illogic and paranoid pique, proceeded to accuse those who called him on it of being obsessed with the matter.

And this is a guy who recently has done all he can to attack the integrity of judge John Jones for his decision in the Kitzmiller case in Dover (under the guise of legal commentary), and now has the impudence to cry foul when his victims have the temerity to fight back. In a post laughably entitled Kitzmiller Plaintiffs' Attorney Uses Ridicule and Harsh Rhetoric against Legal Scholars Who Question Judge Jones Luskin continues his current trend of bitterly snivelling over the mistreatment of ID advocates while indulging in CostCo-sized bouts of projection such as,

"Darwinist blogs are infamous for ridiculing those who question the party line until they change their mind, stop posting, or leave."

Given that the Discovery Institute blogs don't even allow comments, and that other ID blogs are the only ones that routinely and egregiously edit out oppositional content, it requires someone with a curious take on responsibility and honesty to utter this kind of bull. In truth, it takes a hack. Only an unprincipled drone with no concept of personal integrity beyond the willingness to fall on his sword for his cause could produce the kind of content-free hit pieces Luskin offers on a regular basis.

If I believed in a soul, I'd wonder if Luskin every worries over how cheaply he's selling his.

Let the games begin

2007-03-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

Well, my favorite time of year is finally here. The NCAA basketball tournament is about to begin (if one ignores the play-in game two days ago, and by the way wasn't that an extraordinary display of sloppy fundamentals and selfish decisions?).

March Madness is, along with soccer's World Cup, one of the best sporting events on the planet. [Now please don't talk to me about the Super Bowl or the World Series. I said "sporting events," not overly specialized and compartmentalized board games with brief moments of robotic athleticism breaking up the extended tedium.]

Any good fan of college basketball thinks he knows how the tournament's going to play out, and I am no different (except in that I am right). So for those of you still looking for the scoop, here are my picks:

Elite eight: Midwest - Florida, Oregon, West - Kansas, UCLA, East - Texas, Georgetown, South - Ohio State, Memphis
Final four: Florida, UCLA, Texas, Ohio State
Championship game: Florida and Texas
Winner: Florida

Yes, much as I'd love to see UCLA win it all Florida is just too solid all around, and especially on the front line, to be taken down.

I don't expect many upsets this year, although if I was going to pick a darkhorse to go all the way to the final game I'd tab Oregon, they're on a nice roll.

So go ahead and take this to the bank, fill out your brackets, impress your friends with your basketball acumen. I won't tell.

A reminder

2007-03-10T20:45:00.000-08:00

Sometimes there is more than just a random clue, here or there, hinting at futures to be written. Sometimes there is ice cold water splashed in our face, stinging our eyes and forcing us to acknowledge what must very likely come to pass.

Paul O'Neill knew back when he served as Bush's Treasury Secretary. Ron Suskind knew when he wrote the book documenting O'Neill's travails. And many who hadn't known already realized it when they read this chilling passage from Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off.

''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

We knew that we were in for more trouble from an already troubling administration. We knew that the problem didn't begin and end with Bush. There were credulous, pseudo-science peddling, faux anti-elitist, short-sighted posers all through the administration. People who believe the right things for the wrong reasons are scary enough. But people who believe the wrong things for the wrong reasons are downright dangerous.

This is what we need to try to ensure never happens again.

Fine-tuning, determinism, and Fig Newtons

2007-03-09T07:21:00.000-08:00

"Intelligent design" (ID) proponents are fond of observing the "finely-tuned" nature of our universe and counting this as evidence for the inference to an intelligent "tuner." Of course this idea and other variants of the anthropic principle (AP) have been discussed and dissected ad nauseum. Which introduction can only mean that I intend to contribute my own ruminations to the billiousness.

A formulation of the fine-tuning concept I recently came across expressed it as a probability (of the "tuned" constants) argument:

"It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, given chance, that they should have just those values; and it is still much less improbable that they should have those values, if there is a God who wanted a life-friendly universe."

Let's run with this a bit. If we accept as a given (for the purposes of this discussion) that these physical constants are important, that they are particularly tuned such that life in our universe can be accommodated, and that their combinatorial probability of being so tuned is so low that inference to a "tuner" is necessary - then where is the warrant for stopping there?

I mean if we follow the sequence of events, for example: universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life, is it not reasonable to then extend this to: universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life --> man? Sure it is (after all, we just lowered the probability immensely), and I doubt the idea that God intended man to be a consequence of his universal design would cause much consternation amongst those who propound ID (though, of course, they would not want us to get any silly ideas about ID being a religious concept).

Now as see it there is no inherent stopper for the logic of this argument. In other words, if the above is reasonable, then so must be:

universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life --> man --> art, or
universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life --> man --> science, or even
universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life --> man --> atheism

Heck, if "man" is a probabilistic inevitability, then so must be any individual man, thus we can reasonably suggest: universal creation/finely tuned constants --> earth --> life --> man --> my parents --> me! (Think of how low that probability must be.)

Okay, I'll admit it may be a bit of a stretch to argue that God's purpose in creating the universe was that it should result in me sitting here at my computer reluctantly gnoshing on these barely passable whole wheat Fig Newtons (Mmmm...real Fig Newtons...argleargleargleargle). But inside this silliness is a serious point.

It seems to me that the positing of an involved and interested omniscience fiddling with natural law such that intelligent humans are the result must imply as a logical consequence a kind of determinism that many theists would find disconcerting. What force do those arguments about our supposed freedom to choose to be moral, or to be saved through his grace, then have?

Granted, there is still a related difficulty with even the simple postulation of a deistic sort of God who winds the whole thing up then lets it go. But it seems to me that, absent the notions of fine-tuning and probability which go such a great distance in detailing God's will regarding "us," the idea that a rigid determinism is not obligated becomes much easier to swallow.

Unlike these whole wheat Newtons.

Argumentum ad hurt feelings

2007-03-08T07:09:00.000-08:00

What passes for news on the DI's Evolution News and Views blog must be symptomatic, I suppose, of a major, long-term lull in the "intelligent design" research program. What else could account for the fact that there is never any substantive ID news released there? And the only views offered are those which detail the persecution suffered by honest, forthright design proponents at the hands of those evolutionists who are...well, they're just so mean!

In a recent post, Casey Luskin (quickly becoming the hack among hacks) reveals the earth-shattering particulars,

A student at Boise State University recently published an opinion article in the campus newspaper, the Arbiter Online, defending intelligent design. In the article Aaron Vandenbos observed that there is a difference between how ID-proponents and evolutionists behave when in debate: “In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.”

[...]

Interestingly, one Darwinist commenter simply said in response: “Stay in school and quit repeating the same tired claptrap that comes out of the Discovery Institute.” I suppose the only counter-response that can be said is that this commenter simply proved Mr. Vandenbos’ point.

Well, forgive me, but I feel compelled to point out that there is another, even more appropriate response: That would be to offer the research data which supports your notion that ID is not, in fact, "claptrap." To demonstrate that there is some acceptance or even interest in ID outside the religious community and the Discovery Institute. Maybe it might even help to show how ID is anything beyond a dressed up god-of-the-gaps argument.

Or, you could just whine and play the victim.

Oh, and I've got a news lead for Casey and his crew. I just heard that down the street and around the corner a guy made his girlfriend cry. Hope they get video.

The ethics of belief - III

2007-03-06T07:58:00.000-08:00

[This is a continuation of my examination of an essay by William Clifford called The Ethics of Belief.

Backstory moment: This look at Clifford's piece came about as a result of email I received in response to an article in which I suggested that Faith, even if we accept it to be an irrational act, need not always be considered a mistake. The reader asserted that he took the opposite position and offered the Clifford piece in support. Posts I and II dealt with Part 1. (The duty of inquiry) of the essay.]

Parts 2. (The weight of authority) and 3. (The limits of inference) of Clifford's essay offer, to my mind at least, little with which to concern oneself, at least as regards a discussion of whether unconfirmed belief (Faith) is irrevocably wrong.

His summation of these two sections comes at the end of the essay:

We may believe what goes beyond our experience, only when it is inferred from that experience by the assumption that what we do not know is like what we know.

We may believe the statement of another person, when there is reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the matter of which he speaks, and that he is speaking the truth so far as he knows it.

There is nothing controversial here from our perspective. This is all common sense. But the next, and last, line then returns to the thrust of his first section:

It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe.

If offered merely as guidance, rather than a blanket proscription, this advice would serve critical thought. But Clifford instead gives us a commandment, and as such serves only to confuse issues. He makes clear throughout the essay that he is not simply speaking of metaphysical concepts, he means to broaden the context of his comments to the most meager of ideas. As a consequence it is not possible to defend his position on the grounds of narrowly defined categories.

And so we can note in response that there are many situations in which it may be morally necessary to act on a belief based upon the evidence available, regardless of its sufficiency. Consider a situation in which one man is beating another in an alley. One of them is crying for help. It is possible that the man doing the pleading could, in fact, have been the criminal initiator of the conflict, perhaps he even has a hidden weapon. In intervening we might actually enable his access to the weapon and in so doing embolden either his damage to us or his eventual escape and damage to another. Do we act upon the impulse to help the apparent victim, or not? Most would assert we should help.

A less dramatic, but perhaps more far-reaching, example is that of a family man who manages to live a positive, productive life because of the direct influence of the Faith he holds. It's not relevant to observe that he is capable of living this way without his Faith, the important point is that he believes it to be necessary. If what propagates from this man's behavior is an example of socially aware and acceptable behavior for his kids who then offer the same example to their kids is it not reasonable to conclude that this man has been an influence for good in his society? If so, then Clifford is again incorrect to phrase his message in absolutes. Insufficiently evidenced belief (Faith) may be a naive model of reality, but it is not always wrong in the broader sense Clifford, and others, wish to suggest.

There is an important point that I believe is missed by those who suggest that religion is wrong (even when it acts for good or neutral) in that it smoothes the way, keeps the ground fertile as it were, for more extreme forms of irrationality. What they are arguing ignores historical contingency. They may well be correct in noting that, in the ideal, the world would be a better place without Faith. But for these desires to become reality requires practical application. There must be a way to get from here to there.

Perhaps some of the more limited, more, shall we say, sophisticated forms of religion and religion-like spirituality are the vehicle for taking us to a world without irrationality. If we allow their legitimacy within that context, we encourage movement in the direction we want. If we issue blanket statements about the foolishness of Faith we diminish the effect of these limited forms and encourage the rise of more strident religion.

To me the former approach is the best of all worlds - it's the right strategy taken for the right reasons.

The fettered mind - Alvin Plantinga

2007-03-02T08:10:00.000-08:00

Alvin Plantinga, philosopher, apologist and sometimes defender of "intelligent design" has written a review (response?) to Dawkins' The God Delusion that nicely demonstrates the difficulty of employing reason when hampered by absolutes of personal philosophy which preclude particular avenues of investigation and understanding.

One could see this as a variant of confirmation bias, but for the moment, I'm going to give it another name. I'll refer to this syndrome as "the fettered mind."

I do not mean for this to be pejorative. I suspect, as I have said previously, that we all have idiosyncratic cognitive obstacles with which to deal. One of mine, for instance, may be the fact that I just can't wrap my head around the idea of eating sweet potatos. Yeah, yeah, you can tell me all day long about how good they are but it won't wash, I can't go there.

In the case of discussion of theism, there are places that some theists, even philosophers of religion apparently, appear not to be able to go - the most relevant to me (and this post) being the locus of discussion within a frame of the non-existence of God.

There are, of course, many avenues of theistic discourse that do not require the ability to use this frame. However, debates revolving around the rationality of Faith, belief in God, and science vs. religion, are ones that most definitely do.

Consider the aforementioned piece by Plantinga. It begins with this,

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal…."
Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

Now, although I do have some problems with Dawkins' book, I think it largely accomplishes its more rudimentary tasks. One of those, as Plantinga acknowledges in his review, is the emboldening of religious critiques. In service of this, I think the above oft-quoted passage is a powerful stroke of shock therapy. Dawkins is not displeased with God, he hasn't chosen him "as his sworn enemy." For heaven's sake, Dawkins doesn't believe in God! This is his way of saying, "Let's just take an honest look at this story without the blinders caused by reverence, or forebearance."

Plantinga's joking demeanor aside, I think his response reveals a cognitive difficulty with the notion that one can bring the full focus of rational observation to the enterprise of describing God.

Later in the article there is another, more deeply seated example of this. In rebutting Dawkins' version of the infinite regress problem, Plantinga says,

First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being.") So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.

And follows a few paragraphs later with,

So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.

It's fascinating to me that Plantinga doesn't seem to see the inherent problem with these arguments. In responding to Dawkins' ideas in The God Delusion, he is addressing an assertion that God is likely not to exist, that the theistic world is engaged largely in accepting one or another version of complex and convoluted "mythology." To which, mystifyingly, Plantinga responds by citing that very mythology as evidence to the contrary. As a result Plantinga manages to convince himself (and probably many others) that it is Dawkins' responsibility to provide evidence for God's non-existence, not his own to offer the affirmative position.

It is nearly inconceivable to me that this illogic could happen if Plantinga were able to address Dawkins' arguments within the proper frame, one that does not include God as a given.

Next, Plantinga addresses Dawkins' reaction to the "fine-tuning" argument, writing,

What is Dawkins' reply? He appeals to "the anthropic principle," the thought that the only sort of universe in which we could be discussing this question is one which is fine-tuned for life:
"...the anthropic answer, in its most general form, is that we could only be discussing the question in the kind of universe that was capable of producing us. Our existence therefore determines that the fundamental constants of physics had to be in their respective Goldilocks [life-friendly] zones."
Well, of course our universe would have to be fine-tuned, given that we live in it. But how does that so much as begin to explain why it is that alpha is fine-tuned?

Obviously, it doesn't purport to explain why the universe is "fine-tuned," it is meant to explain why the attitude that accepts these kinds of arguments is misguided. Plantinga himself almost tumbles to this with his next sentence,

One can't explain this by pointing out that we are indeed here—anymore than I can "explain" the fact that God decided to create me (instead of passing me over in favor of someone else) by pointing out that if God had not thus decided, I wouldn't be here to raise that question.

But unfortunately he loses the plot in the confusion of theistic givens. What Plantinga should realize, where he able, is that it makes no more sense to say "look at how this universe fits me so well" than it does "look at how God must have wanted me to be exactly who, what, where, and when I am today" if there is no overriding theological conviction. This self-centered illogic is neatly summed up by the Douglas Adams quote,

". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

I think we've all felt this intuition, to some degree, at one time or another. I suspect it's partly a result of the way our brains are wired to see the world. But when it informs a perspective that cannot conceive of a universe without God, that perspective is severely hamstrung when trying to discuss matters of the intersection of science and religion.

But on toward the end we find one of the most ubiquitous examples of flawed arguments propagating from the fettered mind. This is the assertion that naturalism, materialism, and by extension an acceptance of the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to produce complexity, has a built in contradiction. Many have made the argument, here is how Plantinga presents it:

Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?

[...]

The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.

A theist, more specifically a theist unable to properly frame the argument, cannot conceive of truth as separate from Truth. But if one is able to imagine, and for the purposes of discussion frame his arguments from the point of view of, a universe without God one can see that truth need not involve metaphysical absolutes. Simple, adaptive strategies can be sufficient. In that frame "truth" can mean the results of cognitive processes that help us to survive and flourish. Thus, contextually, truth can be as simple as: "eating this allays my hunger."

If we are able to divorce ourselves from the need for overarching, soul-comforting, law-giving absolutes we can see that most empirical truth is merely an epistemological extension of observations like the above. It is not necessary to believe that our neurophysiology delivers anything more than succesful adaptive "truths" in order to believe that we can "actually know something about ourselves and our world." Consider also our social nature and one can easily see that through external confirmation or negation individual observations can reach the level of reliable truth. What's more, it no real stretch to understand how this same cognitive apparatus can lead us to socially adaptive, i.e., moral, strategies.

The notion that, as Plantinga writes,

the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it.

[...]

...natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.

Can thus be seen to make sense only in the light of an irrepressible conviction that God, and ultimate Truth, must exist.

Again, I'm not saying that the belief itself is the problem, just the inability to put the belief aside for the purpose of discourse with those who do not share it. Otherwise, Plantinga would see that as a response to Dawkins, his comments about naturalism being self-defeating hold no water whatsoever.

If fettered mind syndrome is a problem we all share to one degree or another, and I think it is, then it behooves us to understand and mitigate its effects upon our ability to reason contextually. I try not to tell other people that they are silly to eat sweet potatos, that such things are foul tasting lumps of unnatural origin. I try to see my own personal blinders within the greater context of any culinary discussion.

Seems to me that some theists could benefit from imagining a universe without sweet potatos.

Dembski's blissful misunderstanding of design

2007-02-22T07:51:00.000-08:00

William Dembski, over at the Giant Flagellum blog (Uncommon Descent) has once again seen fit to display the shallowness of his approach to design, not to mention "design."

In a silly entry about vestigial structures he notes at the end,

"But vestigiality need not evolve by purely material means — it can also be designed. I was delighted to be informed (after my recent debate with Michael Shermer at Bridgewater College) of a nifty example of vestigial structures that arise not through “devolution” but rather through design, to wit, vestigial running boards on older automobiles. Look at the following Ford models:" [Followed by pictures of old cars with pseudo-running boards and one with a fully functional running-board.]

Once again I'll observe that "design" advocates appear to pointedly avoid deeper consideration of the qualities of real design, opting instead for the convenience of imprudent inferences which support their religious convictions.

Fortunately this mistake on Dembski's part is simply and quickly corrected, so let's put it right: a vestigial structure or organ is one that has lost, or nearly lost, any discernible function by way of a release of selection pressure. In other words, vestigiality is a case of disuse and (sometimes) deterioration due to a lack of need. As such, vestigiality presents difficulty for some shallow versions of "design" (such as Dembski's). Thus he tries to offer an analogy with human design (a fatally flawed argument to be sure) which would support the notion that vestigiality need not be incompatible with "intelligent design."

His problem is that the supposedly vestigial running-boards to which he refers are simply nothing of the sort. They are, in fact, stark examples of functionality. Those structures may no longer serve the original purpose of a running-board, but they in no way represent a loss of function. They were designed and manufactured to be exactly what they are - probably ornamentation, but possibly structural support and/or mechanical protection of the door - and where they are.

They are not vestigial at all. We might be forgiven, however, for wishing that Dembski's argument was.

Update - Dembski adds to the silliness with another post.

The ethics of belief - II

2007-02-21T22:55:00.000-08:00

[This is a continuation of my examination of an essay by William Clifford called The Ethics of Belief.]

Obviously the most important reason for looking closely at this essay is the way it synthesizes ideas that we can use to reflect upon the current controversy over how best to approach religion (and the religious) within the context of the defense of science. But as I said in my first post, I am also quite taken with how Clifford writes. Consider this passage (from Pt. I. The Duty of Inquiry), first for its graceful articulation, then for its content.

Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decision of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves but for humanity. It is rightly used on truths which have been established by long experience and waiting toil, and which have stood in the fierce light of free and fearless questioning. Then it helps to bind men together and to strengthen and direct their common action. It is desecreated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements, for the solace and private pleasure of the believer; to add a tinsel splendour to the plain straight road of our life and display a bright mirage beyond it; or even to drown the common sorrows of our kind by a self-deception which allows them not only to cast down, but also to degrade us. Whoso would deserve well of his fellows in this matter will guard the purity of his beliefs with a very fanaticism of jealous care, lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away.

Seldom have I so enjoyed the reading of something so diametrically opposed to my own view - "Belief, that sacred faculty..." Wonderful stuff.

But, I think, hopelessly flawed. As I said at the end of the previous post, I am uncomfortable with absolutes. The problem with zealotry, even in service of honorable causes, is that it often blinds the eyes to those subtleties that can tip the scales when the balance between positive and negative, valuable and useless, even good and bad, is unclear. Clifford, in my opinion, makes this mistake all throughout his essay, but especially here in Pt. I.

By what evidence or logic might we say that belief is "not for ourselves but for humanity?" This is a case of special pleading, of setting a premise such that the rest of the argument will flow without sufficient care for the legitimacy of the premise itself. It is not reasonable, either from a biological, moral, or societal view to suggest that belief is "not for ourselves but for humanity." I don't mean to say that belief doesn't in some cases have ramifications for humanity, I mean to say that those beliefs that do may be considered categorically separable from other kinds of belief. All belief is not of a piece, as Clifford suggests (such that his uncompromising conclusions may be supported). Some beliefs are minor conceits, some pleasant trivialities just for ourselves. Beliefs can be, and often are, harmless in the larger context of the human condition.

Yes, belief "helps to bind men together" (nor is it a requirement for this condition that such beliefs are "true"). And in the case that they do so to the betterment of man, even when based upon inadequate knowledge, how can this be fairly judged a desecration or a degradation? This is a wild over-reaction.

The last line of the above paragraph is positively liturgical - "...lest at any time it should rest on an unworthy object, and catch a stain which can never be wiped away." Such unrelenting certainty is disturbing in one who protests the irrationality of unevidenced belief.

Clifford begins his conclusion of Pt. I,

To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

Then follows shortly thereafter with this strikingly ironic (perhaps even contradictory) observation,

Inquiry into the evidence of a doctrine is not to be made once for all, and then taken as finally settled. It is never lawful to stifle a doubt; for either it can be honestly answered by means of the inquiry already made, or else it proves that the inquiry was not complete.

He finishes with an absolutely unrealistic admonition,

"But," says one, "I am a busy man; I have no time for the long course of study which would be necessary to make me in any degree a competent judge of certain questions, or even able to understand the nature of the arguments."

Then he should have no time to believe.

Maybe so, but that is not how the real world works. We can argue about these things in the ideal, but of what use it that for the issue of belief? In a utopia, this would be, whether to one result or the other, a settled question.

A new ID 'Toon

2007-02-19T09:55:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'll grant you there's a certain amount of irony in me putting up this new cartoon right after I changed the look of the site, but hey, I can laugh at myself.

Just nobody else better!

ID 'Toons #5 - Setting the agenda

(More ID 'Toons)

The ethics of belief - I

2007-02-17T08:14:00.000-08:00

I've received some email in response to my piece over at CSICOP's Creation/ID Watch site dealing with how to approach the issue of religion while opposing creationism.

In that article I suggested that it was both unwise and self-defeating to note a person's religious affinities (deemed irrationality by some) and thereby sum their possible contribution to the debate, and even in some cases to society as a whole, as negative. It was, and remains, my supposition that an individual, especially those more enlightened souls who accept the metaphorical nature of faith, is unfairly judged if evaluated solely upon the basis of his adherence to a particular "irrationality" without consideration of how rationally he approaches the rest of his interaction with his family and society.

I wanted to offer the point of view that it is not necessarily an irredeemable act to believe irrationally. As I suspect most of us cleave to some personal irrationality or other, it would seem a more reasonable position to try to engage an individual as a collection of behaviors and positions. In other words, judge someone on the whole of their contribution.

Some readers have written to assert the opposing view - that the act of Faith (based on things unseen) is always wrong, that believing irrationally is never justified, or even harmless.

I think this is an important point to consider at some length. And as the larger thrust of the CSICOP article (and, I believe, Dawkins' "The God Delusion") was that discussion of provocative ideas can only contribute to greater understanding, I'd like to consider some sections from one of the materials suggested by my respondents. It is an essay from William Clifford called "The Ethics of Belief." Although there is much in the essay with which I disagree (including it's overarching point that it is always wrong to believe on insufficient evidence) it offers clear ideas that can be easily and profitably considered. Most important, it is wonderfully written.

As this will have to take place over several installments, let's begin at the beginning with an excerpt from section one (The Duty of Inquiry) of the essay.

A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowlingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.

Before we look at the following paragraph I think it's important to consider some observations that relate to the foregoing. First Clifford notes that the man in his parable acquired his belief dishonestly by stifling his doubts. Yet it seems to me that all belief is, to a greater or lesser degree, a "stifling of doubts." I do not believe it is fair for Clifford to cast this action negatively. It is something we all do, and it's seldom possible to predict whether catastrophic consequences might result from our uncertainties.

Second, there is a sense of contradiction in Clifford's description here. Did the shipowner decide to forgo repairs because of selfish considerations such as "this should put him at great expense" or did he "sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship?" One might rejoin that it is possible for people to embrace often contrary notions such as these, and one would be right. But I think that diminishes the force of Clifford's parable, for which the necessity to assign blame (in this case for believing without warrant) is to some degree dependent upon clarity of intent.

And third, don't we have to wonder if this incident: a ship going down in mid-ocean, is the outcome of many intertwined series of connected events and personal choices. What about the captain of the ship? What about the builders, or the harbor masters? Did they not share, in some measure, the responsibility for this tragedy? Is it reasonable, even for the purposes of a thought-experiment, to ascribe this result to the coalescence of one individual's (in this case, the shipowner) whims?

Clifford then says,

Let us alter the case a little, and suppose that the ship was not unsound after all; that she made her voyage safely, and many others after it. Will that diminish the guilt of her owner? Not one jot. When an action is once done, it is right or wrong for ever; no accidental failure of its good or evil fruits can possibly alter that. The man would not have been innocent, he would only have been not found out. The question of right or wrong has to do with the origin of his belief, not the matter of it; not what it was, but how he got it; not whether it turned out to be true or false, but whether he had a right to believe on such evidence as was before him.

This is powerful stuff. But is it reasonable? I'm not so sure. Is an action, once done, "right or wrong for ever?" Are its consequences really unimportant in determining the morality of an action, or in this case, a thought? Can one truly be guilty without ever causing any discernible harm, to anyone?

Clifford expands, and attempts to defend, his position on these ideas later in the essay, which I will deal with in a later post. But let me finish here by saying that I am uncomfortable with absolutes. It is the conceit that there are universal, irrevocable absolutes, to which one can cleave regardless of context, that lies at the nexus of my difficulties with religion. And I find them no less disconcerting in the rhetorical hands of non-believers.

Relax, everyone, this is actually good news

2007-02-14T07:15:00.000-08:00

So the latest buzz (one could hardly have missed it) is about an article in the New York Times which recounts the tale of one Marcus Ross, a creationist who managed to get his Ph.D in Geosciences from the University of Rhode Island.

Now, it's not my way to recycle stories from other blogs but in this case what I find so interesting in reading posts from so many of my fellow ID critics is the near universal level of revulsion at Ross's disingenuousness. So let me make the contrast clear right up front by offering my reaction - I think it's great that Ross got his doctorate. It's a positive thing for all concerned, including his potential students. I wish more creationists would follow his lead.

Lost amid the hand-wringing over lack of intellectual integrity, lying, and outright fraudulence, not to mention some discussion of creating a system that would deny degrees to those of Ross's ilk, is the obvious fact that every time one of these guys comes along with his silly pseudo-scientific musings on evolution we all tell him to go learn something about the subject.

Well, that's what Ross did. And it's a good thing.

It's good for him, as he will likely be more measured in the promulgation of his creationism, just as someone like Jonathan Wells (despite his lack of honesty) is more measured than Ken Ham. It's good for his students at (*shudder*) Liberty University, who otherwise might have had an instructor that was scientifically ignorant. And it's good for the general debate environment, where surely an increased level of education among creationists can only contribute to the success of reason.

But the questions remain, can Ross be fairly charged of deceit in the attainment of his degree? Can he be a competent, honest paleontologist and still believe in a young earth?

Well, as for the competence issue: according to all accounts from the article it's clear that Ross's work in getting his doctorate was exemplary. There has been no doubt expressed as to his abilities, just his affinities.

And therein lies the problem. Are we justified in questioning his, or anyone's, philosophical proclivities in this context? There are plenty of scientists who embrace, shall we say, questionable ideas. What if Ross believed in ghosts, or faith-healing, or homeopathy for God's sake? Would we feel inclined to deride his integrity, perhaps even consider denying him a degree?

Ahh, "but those concepts do not constitute a direct contradiction with his field of research," you might rejoin. I'm not so sure. Consider that those beliefs, along with the assertion of a young earth, all invoke phenomena beyond the reach of natural law. As such, I would submit that all of these things are at odds with the foundational methodology of science itself. The contradiction goes to the heart of science, regardless of whether it directly opposes the details of any particular discipline.

So I am forced to wonder where it might end, where we would draw the line between forgivable eccentricity and forbidden irrationality. It's clear to me that we cannot draw the line anywhere but at the point where scientists and universities are separated from the business of policing thought and evaluating motives.

As creationism tries more and more to look like science while diluting the religious component of its message, the last thing we need is for science to start looking more like religion.

More "famous last words" from ID prognosticators

2007-02-10T07:58:00.000-08:00

"MikeGene" over at Telic Thoughts strives for Dembskian status amongst ID proponents (I simply cannot bring myself to refer to him/her as a "theorist," even with the scare quotes) as a pompous predictor of Darwinian doom with this post.

The delerium comes at the end. After reprinting part of a review (of the movie "A Flock of Dodos") by Anthony Dick, in which Dick lauds the movie for nailing "irreducible complexity" as a "god of the gaps" argument, MG, who apparently has written a book which is due out soon, says,

"Read it again for historical reasons. Why? It won’t be much longer before this little book comes out. And when it does, Dick’s entire 318-word argument crashes and burns.

Bye, bye, old anti-ID argument(s)."

Just thought I'd document this bit of puffery here for future reference. Of course if his paradigm-shattering little tome does sweep away the "god of the gaps" label and IC research promises a new biological synthesis, then I'll be happy to eat my words, maybe with a little hassenpfeffer on the side.

The analogy with human design...yet again

2007-02-09T08:04:00.000-08:00

Just noticed this piece from a British professor of design and nature (an engineer) defending the concept of "intelligent design." It's a mostly harmless bit of fluff which offers nothing beyond tired canards we've heard many times. But one paragraph does give me the opportunity to hammer on a point I've been trying to get across for quite some time - the difference between human design and "design" in nature.

"I've been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I've learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I've seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time."

As I've said before, design proponents love the facile conclusion, seldom spending any time evaluating deeper aspects of their argument.

Our spacecraft systems designer is actually mistaken about what it is he's learnt over the years. So let's rephrase what the good professor had to say so that it more accurately reflects reality.

One of the lessons I've learnt is that complex systems - which reflect human intent in such qualities as minimization of waste, removal, redesign and replacement of suboptimal systems or parts, incorporation of new technology, and comprehensive cost/benefit considerations - require an immense amount of intelligence - in fact, often teams or committees - to design. I've seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering - which of course would be expected due to the fact that human design utilizes processes that evaluate and eliminate extraneous parts or systems. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible - which should lead me to wonder if there are evolutionary processes that can produce natural systems which appear to be "irreducible." An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully - the removal of any one of which destroys the function of the organ or system, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time - or so I'd like to believe.

Okay, that last bit was editorial comment on my part.

Human design is not analogous with natural systems and structures. This argument reveals, not some obvious truth of nature or a conspicuous denial of that truth on the part of biologists, but the shallow self-deception engaged in by those who cannot bear to closely examine their beliefs.

The good professor concludes with this,

"I can understand that some people are worried about the implications of the existence of a creator, but it's not science to rule something out because you don't like the implications."

This might be a tad more creditable a protest had he the intellecual integrity to face the implications inherent in a deeper examination of his position.

"Oh yeah, well if I'm so wrong why are you still arguing with me?"

2007-02-05T07:19:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's is the kind of thing you'd expect to hear on one of those adolescent sitcoms. But this line of argument comes directly from the Discovery Institue (okay, maybe the sitcom analogy is not such a stretch).

I know the bar has been set extraordinarily high (low?) but it occurs to me that this assertion, an example of which follows, may represent the most puerile, childish, painfully foolish argument used by the pro-"intelligent design" corps.

"...it's ironic when scientists issue press releases alleging they've refuted intelligent design (ID), supposedly resolving a scientific controversy they claim doesn’t even exist."

The newest iteration of this silliness, as well as the source for the above quote, comes from a DI blog entry entitled "Scientists Continue to Debate the Controversy that Doesn’t Exist." It's a tactic that has been used often, as if it constitutes some sort of coherent rebuttal to the clear evidence that there is no scientific controversy regarding evolution.

Like many pro-ID arguments this is one that the p.r. hacks at the Discovery Institute likely all know is specious but use anyway because the p.r. return is worth the expenditure in integrity.

But let's lay it out for them anyway.

1. There is no scientific controversy regarding evolution and intelligent design.
2. There is a vigorous political campaign underway to inject ID creationism into the scientific process.
3. Scientists and pundits who rebut ID nonsense are responding to that misinformation campaign. This is not reflective of any rift, split, schism or division within the scientific community regarding the soundness of evolutionary theory, or the irrelevance of "intelligent design," it is the result of biologists resisting religious intrusion into their arena.

It is a lie to say, or imply, otherwise. And like so much sitcom dialogue, it's really, really stupid.

Stop the presses!! - New Mex. paper in bed with...reason!

2007-02-01T15:05:00.000-08:00

Casey Luskin at the DI blog recently hit the ID/Creationism debate with some blockbuster news. Sit down and hold onto your hats people.

Luskin has uncovered some troubling collusion between the Albuquerque Journal and, well, there's just no other way to say it, the AJ is printing stories in support of...contemporary science!

Okay everbody, calm down. Now Luskin tries the typical ID tactic of reframing the discussion by saying that the paper is "doing their best to promote the viewpoint of Darwinists," thus attempting to separate a supposed philosophical interpretation from the scientific facts. But of course we all know that modern "Darwinists" simply rely upon the voluminous available data, and as such are indistinguishable from those who accept the current biological consensus on evolution. That consensus includes random mutation and natural seclection, it includes common descent, and it has yet to discover any evidence of non-natural intelligent intervention.

In fact, the uncontroversial ubiquity of this view among those who've invested their time and expertise makes it clear that anyone hoping to create a distinction between "Darwinists" and "those who accept current biological science" is indulging in a spurious rhetorical strategem. This would be the behavior of public relations hacks, and that would be an excellent description of Luskin and his pals at the DI blog.

On the other hand, maybe I should worry about the nasty anti-irrationalist proclivities of those New Mexico reporters.

I mean, next thing you know, they'll jump into bed with those crazy heliocentrists!

You're almost there...think...think...c'mon, you can do it

2007-01-21T13:29:00.000-08:00

Over at UD one of the descenders presents this goofy argument from Denise O'Leary,

"Bear with a simple lay hack here a moment: Why must we know a designer’s intentions in order to detect design?

If the fire marshall’s office suspects arson, do the investigators worry much about WHY?

Surely they investigate, confirm their finding, and turn the information over to other authorities and interested parties, without having the least idea why someone torched the joint.

ALL they need to be sure of is that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes."

To begin with, we do not need to know the designer's intentions. But we do need to know something of the designer, its motives, its methods, its qualities, maybe the fact of its existence. We need to have some sort of information that suggests an inference to a designer is a reasonable one.

The reason the fire marshall's office can conduct an investigation without knowing motives is that they know from past experience that an inference to arson can be productive because they know from past experience of an intelligence which exhibits this behavior.

Of course once they know "that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes" they can begin such an inquiry, but that's the fulcrum upon which the direction of investigation of design rests, isn't it? If they eliminate non-deliberate cause they (the fire dept.) can make the leap to "intelligence" or "design" precisely because the intelligence or designer to which they refer is empirically established as a causal agent.

Unless ID proponents are suggesting that the "designer" they infer is humans (and we all know this is not the case) then it is clear they are trying to trade upon the altogether uncontroversial inference to design inherent in forensics in order to clear space for an inference to their entirely undemonstrated (and undemonstrable) magical design. It's a foolish bit of rhetoric that unfortunately satisfies too many uncritical minds.

One of which is possessed by the author of the post. His credulity and gullibility are such that he swallows this nonsense without the slightest hint of evaluation.

The observation Denyse makes is so obvious that one would need a Ph.D. in obfuscation not to see it. Common sense is not so common, at least among those with a foundational commitment to materialism.

Here's the real irony of O'Leary's comment. If it is necessary and sufficient to know simply "that the joint did not torch itself, via natural causes" then it is impossible to exclude ID's "intelligent designer" as a possible suspect in any case of arson. Her specious logic would leave inconclusive, and thus unprosecutable, any purportedly intelligently designed fire.

C'mon ID people, just follow those thought processes a bit farther. And remember, if you get stuck I'll always be happy to lend a hand.

Phillip Johnson vs Phillip Johnson

2007-01-18T08:40:00.000-08:00

In a post over at Dispatches, Ed Brayton quotes from a recent definition of ID by Phillip Johnson. Per fashion, the bulk of Johnson's explanation of ID consists of a repudiation of current scientific understanding, i.e., biological evolution, by way of assault on current scientific methodology, i.e., methodological naturalism.

Here is Johnson's definition,

"Intelligent design is a proposition that is contrary to the officially described neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which Richard Dawkins was promoting. That theory says that the entire history of life from the ultimate origin of life on earth up through all the plants and animals, human beings, right up to the greatest geniuses on earth today, take your choice, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, George W. Bush, these are all products of a combination of chance and physical or chemical law that is purely natural which is to say unintelligent causes. There is no creator, no designer, no intelligence behind the whole thing. That is the claim, that as far as the evidence shows, that that is the case, that is an undesigned system operating on the basis of chance and physical law with no intelligence whatever. The intelligent design position, which I began to advance in the book I started in England in 1987, that came out later as Darwin on Trial, now pretty well known, was that no, that doesn't work. To adequately explain the origin of life and the different kinds of living things that we see on earth today and throughout earth's history, to adequately explain how these things came about you have to go beyond the unintelligent physical causes that the Darwinian theory allows, that's all that that theory allows, and acknowledge that there had to be some intelligent cause operating in the system. If I could rename the whole thing now I would probably call it the intelligent cause theory rather than intelligent design, but that's alright, we've got that name and we'll stick with it. So that's what it is, there is an intelligent cause operating in the history of life or we wouldn't have the things that we have today.

There is only one way someone as intelligent as Phillip Johnson could go twenty years without learning a single thing about science: willful ignorance. The above is such an egregious collection of mistatement and misunderstanding that I think it goes far beyond Brayton's wry paraphrase - "ID means not evolution." Like many ID arguments, Johnson's whinging amounts to a much broader "ID means not science." An observation which stands in stark contrast to his utterly inane summation,

That's a scientific proposition, it's based on the scientific evidence and nothing else."

Well now, that's just an outright lie. Wouldn't you agree Phillip Johnson?

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy." - Phillip Johnson, World Magazine, November 30, 1996

"If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the "wedge." - Phillip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, pp. 91-92

"The Intelligent Design movement starts with the recognition that "In the beginning was the Word," and "In the beginning God created." Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message." - Phillip Johnson, Forward to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science, 2000

"We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator." - Phillip Johnson, LA Times, March 25, 2001

"This is a way of phrasing the issue that ought to bring together Protestants of different views young-earth believers and the scriptures, old-earthers who interpret Genesis differently, even the people who take the whole thing allegorically. Again, they should have a common interest in the issue. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning God created. True or false." Phillip Johnson, Kansas conference, June, 2001

"So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." - Phillip Johnson, Touchstone Magazine interview, June 2002

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." - Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, January 10, 2003

"The subject is not just the theory of evolution, the subject is the reality of God." - Phillip Johnson, Hank Hanegraaf's "Bible Answer Man" radio program, 12/19/2004

"We're not trying to prove the character of God through science. That's a bad idea. What I'm trying to do is clear away the misunderstandings, the debris that prevent people from accepting that God who wants to accept them." - (Ibid.)

I thought so. Thanks for your help in clearing that up.

Logic, damned logic, and Joe Carter - Pt. II

2007-01-17T08:00:00.000-08:00

Joe Carter, at evangelical outpost, has delivered a series of articles “honoring” his “favorite bizarre worldview.” That would be atheism, of course, and his particular brand of “honoring” seems to combine equal parts flawed reasoning and foolish premises.

I took a look at one of his posts from that series previously, and will examine another of his “Why Naturalism is a Self-Refuting Philosophy” efforts here.

He begins,

"Richard Dawkins once wrote that it appears almost as if "the human brain is specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism." Although his statement is bursting with irony, it appears to be lost on the typically clueless Dawkins. He appears not to realize that if the human brain is "designed" (he can't help but sneak in teleological terms for non-teleological processes) by evolution then our brains would have no way to "understand" Darwinism.

Okay, there are several problems here. One is Carter’s misapprehension that Dawkins “can't help but sneak in teleological terms.” In fact Dawkins is quite aware of the word he is using and suitably qualifies it (as he has his use of the word “design” in many other places) with the phrase “appears almost as if.” It’s likely Carter himself is aware that Dawkins is aware, so this is clearly a lame attempt to score easy points. It is well ignored.

Second, Carter’s assertion that “if the human brain is "designed" by evolution then our brains would have no way to "understand" Darwinism” is spurious at best. Try as we may to tease it apart for some sort of coherence there is no sense in his suggestion. There is no logic behind the suggestion that an evolutionarily designed brain would be unable to understand “Darwinism.”

Even Charles Darwin recognized that if the human brain is a product of blind, non-teleological evolutionary processes, then we have no reason to believe that the brain is capable of producing convictions that are trustworthy:

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Darwin had to deal with his doubts within his time’s own philosophical environment and in relation to the values with which he was raised. As do all who lose Faith, Darwin had to adjust to the notion that man's perceptions of "Truth" were less empirically reliable than he'd thought.

But although he initially recoiled at the thought that humans shared ancestry with monkey’s (as did many of his time), he pursued empirical understanding (the most reliable "truth" we know) even so. Nowhere did Darwin imply that the evolutionary history of our species renders us incapable of understanding that history. Had he thought so, he never would have bothered with his research.

Darwin understood what Dawkins is too blind to see: If naturalism is true, then we have no justification for science.

It would be nice if Carter offered some evidence for this assertion.

Science is crushed under the radical skepticism that weighs down the naturalist (or would if they were more logical). In fact, as philosopher Alvin Plantinga points out,

People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

You can choose naturalism and evolution or you can choose evolution and rationalism but you cannot choose naturalism, evolution, and rationalism; taken together, the three are simply incompatible.

Still waiting for the justification for this.

Patricia Churchland, a prominent philosopher and advocate for philosophical naturalism, also agrees that since the aim of evolution is survival, we can't expect our brains to discover "truth":

Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.

Well of course that depends upon the reproductive advantage conferred by the environment on a search for, and fealty to, “Truth.

What follows from here is a barely coherent collection of more quotes and conclusions as to the supposed illogic of believing that unguided evolution can produce reliable cognitive faculties. What both Carter and his hero Alvin Plantinga appear to believe is that demonstrating this with a bit of rhetorical artifice is sufficient to wipe away the lucid reality of the natural world.

But the best comes in Carter’s addendum,

Addendum:

All of this should be self-evident to anyone who has given it a moment's thought. So why would anyone still believe that it is possible that reliable belief-forming apparatus could have arisen from non-teleological evolution? I believe that there are four common errors that prevent them from letting go of this self-defeating theory.

(1) Simple circular reasoning. An example is found in a comment made by Matthew Goggins, "If we see brains that appear to be produced by non-rational processes, such as evolution, we can therefore conclude that rational things or beings are indeed produced by non-rational processes. There is no reason to think otherwise." Obviously, simply assuming that our brains appear to be produced by non-rational processes does not serve as evidence for that claim.

Well…obviously.

Perhaps even more obviously, it is the complete lack of evidence contradictory to a claim that our brains are “produced by non-rational processes,” combined with the reams of scholarship which demonstrates that the concept goes far beyond an assumption, that trumps any silly suggestions that this position arises from circular reasoning.

(2) The assumption that true beliefs would have some form of adaptive value, and would therefore be "selected" by evolution. The problem with this claim is that it cannot tell us what beliefs are true, only that some beliefs have an adaptive value. The reason this is the case is that there are two sets of beliefs--beliefs that are true and beliefs that have an adaptive value--that may or may not overlap.

Nor is this a problem.

We can't say that all true beliefs have an adaptive value without resorting to the fallacy of begging the question.

Is there some reason anyone would want to say this?

We also run into problems if we try to claim that all beliefs that have an adaptive value are true. For example, most evolutionary psychologists claim that religious beliefs (especially belief in God) were developed because they had some survival benefit. But is belief in God a true belief simply because it has an adaptive value? If not then we can't say that all valuable beliefs are true. (Also, if you agree that it has an adaptive value, how do you know that it is not true?)

Did he not say that he was going to present “common errors that prevent them from letting go of this self-defeating theory?” As far as I can see, #2 here is just a tidy little necklace of truisms with no redeeming value (at least toward Carter’s desired goal) other than being shiny.

(3) Willful ignorance. For example, many of our beliefs are simply impossible to explain by reference to non-teleological evolution yet people still pretend that naturalism can be a rational belief.

This reduces to “evolution can’t explain everything, so naturalism is not rational.” Now that’s taking “gap” argumentation to a whole new level!

(4) Having an emotional attachment to theory that transcends all rational warrant.

Spoken without even a hint of irony. Utterly priceless.

Believing that non-teleological evolution has developed in us cognitive faculties capable of producing true beliefs requires a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith." Yet it is unlikely that the average naturalist will give up her belief without a fight. The reason isn't because they are lacking in intellect but rather that they are lacking in will. Our beliefs are not formed by reason alone and so are rarely changed solely by appeals to rationality. An obdurate will, rather than soft-headedness, is the primary reason why naturalists cling to such self-refuting concepts even when they are clearly absurd.

Now there’s a steaming pile of arrogance, and all out of proportion to logical justification I’m afraid (and we’ll surely need a big screen, or perhaps a bed-sheet hung on a wall, in order to handle that scale of projection). Joe may not be able to craft a logical argument, but he certainly can string together the nonsensical strawmen with the best of them.

Carter is clearly, sadly, afflicted with the same intellect-shriveling certainty that turns so many credulous minds into caricatures of organs of perception. I can’t help but remember one of my mother’s cogent observations in referring to an acquaintance as, “often wrong, but never in doubt.”

In any case, let's answer Joe's question from above. He asked: "...why would anyone still believe that it is possible that reliable belief-forming apparatus could have arisen from non-teleological evolution?"

That's easy, of course. Because all of the available evidence supports that conclusion.

Only an obdurate will would think otherwise.

No designer? No design - Yes, it's that simple

2007-01-16T09:23:00.000-08:00

Loathe as I am to credit silly, oft-rebutted arguments by spending significant blogging time on them there are some that persist (and are critical in their persistence) to such a degree that they require an insistant hammering commensurate with their insensate repetition.

The suggestion that we can know something of "design" without knowing anything whatsoever of the "designers" is one such argument. It's most recent offering can be found over at Telic Thoughts. It comes from MikeGene, and it has not improved with age.

The post begins,

"I have no problem with a designer being an object of legitimate scientific inquiry (even though those who design experiments are themselves rarely the objects of legitimate scientific inquiry).

Ok, I’m confused already. What does the designer of an experiment have to do with inquiry into the source of design? Is it really possible MikeGene missed the patently obvious corollaries (to investigation of a designer) in archeology and forensic science, opting instead for this barely coherent observation?

Perhaps it would be more profitable just to move on...

But how does one do this? If I would like to investigate whether the flagellum is designed, for example, I can make use of what we know about design and then get my hands of flagella. But if I wanted to investigate the flagellum’s designers, it’s not as if I can call up another scientist and ask them to mail over some of the designers to me.

No it’s not. And this would be a tip-off to anyone who goes at the investigation of design without inappropriately (and intentionally) broadening the scope to include the influence of unevidenced cause. As the cart cannot come before the horse, so assumption of a design cannot come before evidence of a designer.

It would seem to me that in order to investigate a designer, you need some idea about its designs in order to detect the designer.

No, the only way one knows that “designs” are indeed designs is to know something of the designer. The fact of his/her/its existence would be a good start.

What makes the designer a designer are its designs. So how does one detect/investigate a designer without having a clue about its designs?

This is all still hopelessly backwards. It depends upon the presumption, rather than evidential demonstration, of a designer. It’s a cognitive cul-de-sac that seems to afflict nearly all ID proponents.

Let me try to make this clearer with a thought-experiment. Try to imagine an example of design that does not depend upon knowledge of the designer. It does not have to be from objective experience, it can be entirely hypothetical. But you must be able to defend your conclusion that it is designed by using real world arguments. In other words, whether the artifact in question is real or fanciful you need to describe its "designedness" empirically. It is not possible to do this without using descriptors which indicate some knowledge of the designer.

I've noted in the past that the passion with which adherents wish to invoke "design" often appears to be indirectly proportional to their willingness to examine the qualities of design. When design is invoked by proponents of ID it is always in a broad, not too deeply evaluated sense. It is considered apparent and obvious as an argument. We often hear that "the evidence is all around you if you just open your eyes" and "only those commited to their evolution religion cannot see the obvious design of our universe."

But what is really on display in that attitude is either a woeful paucity of imagination or an unwillingness to examine a priori assumptions.

Anyway, back to the post,

My main problem with the designer-centric approach is that I find it useless. Of course, I’ve explained this many times before, but because I’m not the brightest bulb in the room, I’ll try again. Whenever I ask the proponents of the designer-centric approach how I should investigate according to their model, their only suggestion is that I put on the floppy hat and do an Indiana Jones imitation - looking for the Lost Lab Notes of Gorganian Civilization buried under some mountain – or, rely on my psychic powers to understand how the Gorgans think. It’s not exactly a method that lends itself to an investigation. Might that be the very reason they advocate so strongly for this approach?

For example, when asked about this, one participant to this blog wrote:

"A designer-centric approach would require you to unearth evidence such as:

1) Evidence of the designer’s civilization - writings, starships, bio-engineering labs, fossilized caterpillar tracks, titanium girders, etc.

2) Evidence that life on this planet serves some utility to its designer that is counter to natural selection. Evolution predicts one utility: survival. Though a designer might design exclusively for survival, a designer could have designed for any of a million different purposes."

The designer-centric approach has us first unearthing details about the designer’s methods and psychology and only then can we begin to search for evidence of design. That’s one way of going about it, but the whole idea of ID is to begin with the awareness that we lack such independent information and then ask whether we can still find ways of detecting design. Nobody said it would be easy.

But they (ID "theorists") did say it would be science. Until, however, the hypothesis is tested and not just assumed, it is not science.

Whether the quoted poster was trying to lead MikeGene there by the hand or just knew it intuitively, what he was talking about was the development of data that must precede an inference of design. Without evidence of the designer, there is no justification, nor is there logic, in attributing any particular phenomenon to design.

Look, there is no reason to look for any civilization or psychological profile unless you have reason to think something is designed.

But according to designer-centric proponent, we must first have evidence of the civilization and psychological profile before we can look for and infer design. Did you get that?

I would have, had anyone given it. What was suggested is that there has to be some empirical warrant to infer design, otherwise one is simply advancing a faith proposition. Complaining that this is unfair only supports the conclusion that there is ideology at work here.

Unless you think something is designed, why look for a designer? But you can’t find something that is designed unless you first know things about the designer. It sounds like an approach designed to slam the door shut on any investigation into design.

No, it’s an approach designed to slam the door shut on accommodation of non-natural inference in scientific methodology. Assumption of design by a designer, the existence of whom is entirely unsupported (and, as demonstrated by the attempts of ID proponents to change the methodology of science, is effectively unsupportable) is an assumption of the conclusion one is trying to prove.

The evidence that is supposed to be unearthed is the type of thing you stumble over as you wander about doing other things, not something that is unearthed through an investigation.

This is a continued conflation of natural design (the kind investigated by archeology etc.) and non-natural design (the kind proposed by ID advocates). These are not logically or epistemologically equivalent. There is a completely different burden of proof incumbent upon the proposer of non-natural design. The naturalist walking along and picking up a flaked flint is justified in hypothesizing design because the designer in question is not a controversial inference. But an inference to a designer, the very existence of whom must be taken on faith, is an exercise in asking for exemption from the methodology of science. It is a hugely controversial inference, and must be empirically established as reasonable prior to any investigation of the design itself.

And even if we relax the standards of the designer-centric approach in order to allow it to be applied in an investigative manner, what good is it? If I assume X was designed by some intelligent agent, where do I look for those lab notes and diaries? Let’s assume life on this planet was indeed designed by some intelligent agency. Does this mean someone should be able to go into the lab and find evidence of the designer’s civilization? Does it mean we should be able to find the designers so that we can study them?

No, it means the assumption is just so much bafflegab until you can produce some evidence that such designers are a reasonable inference to those unwilling to accept your hypothesis on faith.

Three questions:

1. If X is designed, what else is designed?
2. Is there is something that connects the things that are designed?
3. How has the design of X (or whatever) influenced evolution and is that itself design?

It would seem to me that steps 1-3 could take of a lifetime of time.

Or it could happen in the merest of instants. As “design” is uncritically included as an assumption in all of the above questions, their exposition depends to a large degree upon personal philosophy and arbitrary evidential standards.

And it would seem if such questions could be addressed (and answered to the satisfaction of many), then, and only then, would it be worth my time to start thinking in designer-centric terms.

I don’t argue or insist that others follow along. But why do I get the feeling they are unwilling to return this respect?

Because you correctly suspect it has not been earned?

Materialistic ideology...

2007-01-15T08:31:00.000-08:00

...has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted.

This is the opening line of the site profile over at the new and improved Uncommon Descent. The complete lack of evidence for this proposition (which would logically connect it to the deductions drawn in the rest of the paragraph) is a nice compact example of that which continues to distinguish ID as a pseudo-science: It's conclusions are assumed and extrapolated from - those extrapolations then being used to support the initial assumptions.

The profile is a mission statement, and should be viewed as an admission that "intelligent design" is an ideological tool of "cultural renewal."

It's certainly not science.

Logic, damned logic, and Joe Carter

2007-01-11T20:35:00.000-08:00

In a piece over at his blog: "the evangelical outpost," Joe Carter proposes to demonstrate that materialism, as a philosophy, is a logical quagmire. This is worth taking a look at, if only because it results in such a uniquely daffy argument. But before I step into it with him I want to point to a “meta” sort of mistake he makes, the likes of which is nearly ubiquitous in these kinds of arguments.

Carter is arguing that materialism is philosophically flawed, and by extension that some sort of non-materialist, extra-naturalist philosophy is more intellectually tenable (he is a fundamentalist Christian, I believe). Consider the very foundational parameters of this position for a moment. Let’s examine the inherent proposition: that we can, by use of logical extrapolation, determine the truth or falsity of a particular perspective [which perspective only accepts as evidence that which can be observed or measured in some fashion, e.g., the natural universe], as opposed to the counter-perspective [which cannot be established by any empirical measure (no this is not a strawman, it is a recognition that for an argument to be persuasive it must present evidence acceptable to those one hopes to persuade)].

In other words, his argument is that logic can demonstrate the factuality of that which is empirically not demonstrable.

Are we not justified in observing that no matter the logical hoops our erstwhile non-materialist philosopher jumps through the fact of a universe wherein we have no evidence for magic (supernaturalism) trumps rhetoric, however earnestly attempted?

Put more simply - feel free to attempt to demonstrate logically that materialism is a failed concept, then let’s both walk outside and deal with the real world, where materialism is the only (successful) game in town. In the final analysis what is important is, well…analysis. If you aint got the evidence, you aint got the goods.

This (intentionally?) overlooked meta-perspective looms over many - especially creationist - philosophical arguments. Think about all those probability calculations which purport to show that some facet of evolution could not have happened naturally. We can argue the details of flagella and biochemistry from here until Tuesday (or even Last Thursday) but the overarching point remains: flagella and biochemistry are demonstrable facts of the natural universe, leaving complaints about probability nothing more than fluffy suggestions that “it,” whichever “it” (biological structure, function, etc.) is currently popular, had to have been magically begotten.

Yes, discussion of the empirical details is important, as it’s often the misunderstanding of these details that some of the less scrupulous theists use to grease the wheels of grassroots religious influence. But let’s not forget, and in fact maybe try to emphasize, the big picture. That’s where these arguments are shown to be little more than logical or semantic conceits.

But I digress. Back to Carter’s blog.

After a brief opening intended to demonstrate that “While we may be at a loss to explain how certain events occur, we can certainly rule out any explanations that are logically impossible” he moves on to his discussion of materialism.

"Most atheists and other advocates of philosophical naturalism also believe in materialism, the idea that everything that actually exists is material or physical. This view forms one of the cornerstone presuppositions in their worldview. The problem is that by clinging to this belief they must also accept other beliefs that can be proven to be logically impossible.

Let's start by examining how such a view affects what philosophers call 'doxastic states' - states of the mind that are either beliefs or are similar to beliefs (i.e., thoughts, judgments, opinions, desires, wishes, fears). If materialism is true then all doxastic states are (a) illusions, (b) physical states, or (c) emergent properties of physical states.

[…]

The second position is the one that is most commonly espoused by materialists."

I don’t know that it's true that materialists prefer (b) more commonly than (c), but it doesn’t matter, because Carter proceeds to conflate the positions below.

"Physical states (i.e., within an entity though not necessarily in the brain) produce a doxastic state with a special causal or functional role. Under this view, known as non-reductive physicalism, functional properties cannot be reduced to physical properties, but that all causality is still, nevertheless, physical.

Jaegwon Kim has shown how one can be either a physicalist, or non-reductive, but not both by using a simple diagram:

M causes M*
P causes P*

In this diagram, a single mental event M is seen as causing another mental event M*. This mental event is physically realized (for example in a brain state) by a physical event P, which causes P* i.e. the physical realization of M* . Kim's argument against the existence of mental causation is that the top layer does no real work. P can cause P* all by itself, with no help from M, and there is no coherent way in which M can cause M* without P's help, or without causing P*. Thus it seems that physical causality is all we've got, and mental descriptions are somewhere between "being shallow and being outright falsehoods."

This is close to being word salad. To the degree that it has any meaning it is helplessly distorted by a pre-commitment to dualism. There is no separation between a mental state and its physical realization. There is no need to discover any connection between Kim’s Ms and Ps, nor is there any reason to expect that P should need help from M because P and M are synonymous.

Carter realizes this and gets down to his real purpose: promulgation of the “no free-will” and “atheism is amoral” canards.

"The only other option for the materialist is reductionism, which says that physical events are identical with mental events. This leads us to two equally strange conclusions. If doxastic states are nothing more than physical states then they are controlled by natural laws. All behavior would therefore be caused and bounded by the laws relating to chemistry and physics. Not only would we not possess free will, we could not claim to control our behavior at all."

Indeed this is a strange conclusion. Let’s take a step back as we did at the beginning and look at the bigger picture. Does it really matter to our Newtonian reality whether we can characterize the molecular level as being deterministic? Does it feel to you as if you have free will? Could you choose to stop reading right now? Could I choose to end this piece and stop writing right now?

Of course the answer is yes to both questions. For any value of “free will” that has meaning to the human condition - that being the state where our capacity, real or imagined, is indistinguishable from that of actual free will - we have to accept that humans do display this capacity. It doesn’t matter that we can observe determinism in the physics and chemistry. We operate at a dramatically larger scale, where collation and commingling of stupendously varied sets of physical and chemical influences lays the foundation from which emerges our ability to make choices. Those choices are not merely the end product of a unidirectional flow-chart of activity coming directly from deterministic molecules. They also reflect that which we have learned and internalized and sent back down the chain to eventually directly influence those molecules. We interact with that supposedly deterministic environment such that our choices play a part in building new behaviors and inspiring new choices. Thus, any complaint about having no claim to control of our behavior is sophistry built upon a misunderstanding of the scale and nature of physical determinism.

"We would be so biologically determined that we could not be considered morally responsible for our actions. Every aspect of our behavior would be nothing more than reactions to stimuli produced by our environment. Within such a context, ethics is meaningless."

This is silly. It is no less silly than the alchoholic who protests that because of a genetic predisposition to addiction he is not responsible for the choices he made in drinking and driving and ditching the Dodge. We are not slaves to our genes. We are complicated bundles of pleiotropic interactions and reticulated behavioral and physiological networks. My point above applies here as well, information about how to build a brain and process information does not flow only in one direction, with edicts being handed down by genes and carried out by the developing physiology. Our physiology is influenced by our environment as it grows, and what we become is the product of many loops of developmental interconnectedness - including our own actions and their consequences. Information flows into as well as out from our biological base.

Consequently, it makes no sense to say that we are controlled by our genes in the same way that it makes no sense to say that we are controlled by deterministic laws. Likewise, it is nonsense to suggest that within the materialist concept ethics would be meaningless.

What does makes sense is to say that if one is a materialist, one accepts that ethics are a product of our own decisions, not independently (supernaturally) given.

Carter goes on,

"As a reader once pointed out in a previous comment on this blog, we can't grind down matter and discover 'purpose.' Purpose is, after all, a mental construct. But if matter is all that exists, then all physical events as well as mental events can ultimately be traced back to matter. Doxastic states, if they are more than an illusion, must therefore be a 'property' of matter. But all the matter is of the same "stuff" whether it is the material that comprises stones and plants or the human brain.

That leads to our second conclusion. Since doxastic states are produced by matter, matter can produce doxastic states in anything (or everything). If this is true it leads to a peculiar result. Mountains can have 'beliefs', car engines can feel 'pain', and rivers can have 'memories.' In fact, since matter is all that exists, existence itself becomes a singularity. Materialism is, after all, another form of monism."

This result is indeed peculiar. But the only thing that led there was specious reasoning. It is only by the most frantic waving of hands (or the most myopic of worldviews) that one could argue “Since doxastic states are produced by matter, matter can produce doxastic states in anything” without considering for the briefest moment the fact that the particular arrangement and constitution of the matter in question might have some influence on the ability of that matter to produce a doxastic state.

"Let me restate that once more so that we are clear about what is being claimed:

1. Everything in the universe either exists or does not exist.
2. Matter is all that exists.
3. Everything that exists is made of matter;" [or “can ultimately be traced back to matter," I know Joe wouldn’t want to bias this restatement by leaving out that which he previously allowed], "anything that is not matter" [or cannot ultimately be traced back to matter] "does not exist.
4. The universe exists and does not contain any things that do not exist.
5. Since matter cannot exist and not-exist at the same time, matter is unified (matter is one).
6. Since everything in the universe has an existence and everything that exist is made of matter, the universe is one."

This (6.) is meaningless.

"7. Within the universe, no non-arbitrary distinctions can be made between things that exist."

This is wordplay.

"8. Doxatics states are physical states and physical states are composed of matter. Therefore, doxastic states are composed of (or at least properties of) matter.
9. If any part of matter can produce a doxastic state, all matter can do so. (Follows from 1, 2, and 6)."

This (9.) is casuistry.

"10. Anything that exists can produce a doxastic state."

This is, well…bullshit.

"11. All doxastic states are one.

Some of the conclusions we can draw from this are that we are unable to clearly determine whether our thoughts are being produced by our desk, our chair, our TV, or our brain. After all, they are all composed of matter and matter is one. It's weird but is it wrong?"

No. It doesn’t even rise to the level of being wrong.

(This is obviously a rough draft and I am sure that I will have to tighten the argument to make it completely valid and sound).

No comment. But thanks anyway for the straight line.

The rest is a re-restatement of the foregoing bafflegab. Joe sums up by claiming he has proved a logical contradiction of atheism and wryly observes,

And they say Christians have weird beliefs?

Let's hope he doesn’t expect this post to stand as evidence to the contrary.

Splitters! - New article on CSICOP's Creation/ID Watch site

2007-01-10T19:20:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to let everyone know that I have a new article up on CSICOP's Creation & Intelligent Design Watch website. The title is mentioned above and the subtitle: Thoughts on The God Delusion and the current controversy over the correct approach to opposing creationism, fairly describes its content.

Take a moment and check it out. And try to set time aside to read some of the excellent work there. The site is a great resource.

"Troop surge?"

2007-01-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

Einstein (I believe) said it best,

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The "Grill the ID Guys" Event at Biola

2007-01-06T16:39:00.000-08:00

[This is the long version of an article written for the NCSE's journal: Reports from the National Center for Science Education (Vol. 26. No. 3. May, 2006) about an event held back on May 12th 2006 at Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola). Go here and here if you want to refresh your memory. A sidebar to this piece examining the wisdom of opposing creationism at events such as the one at Biola can be found here.]

The "Grill the ID Guys" Event at Biola
or "We may not know where we’re going, but we’re certainly not going away."

On the way to the “Intelligent Design Under Fire” event (also referred to as “Grill the ID Guys”) at Biola my wife asked me what she should expect. I considered for a few moments and replied, “Well, if the past is any indication you will probably see responses from the “intelligent design” (ID) guys that begin with a good bit of geniality, and then make a cursory attempt to address the question before digressing into something unrelated about which they wish to talk. That and a lot of complaining that a question is unfair, or ignoring it altogether.”

She eyed me with a look that seemed to say, “what makes you think you can make that kind of prediction?” To be honest, although the cynic in me expected little more than a post-Dover pep rally my mind still harbored a tiny kernel of optimism that we might finally see some genuine light shed on difficult issues. But I’d learned not to give voice to these hopes.

“What about the individuals,” she asked. I gave her a quick run-down on each guy as she ticked off the names.
“Wells?”
“He’s a Moonie, got his bio education so he could prove evolution wrong.”
“Nelson?”
“A young-earth creationist, not really an ID guy as I see it, but he likes to hang out with this crowd.”
“Gonzalez?”
“He’s relatively new so he probably won’t say much, wrote a book about how fortunate we are to live on a place like earth which is so well suited to life.”
“No way,” she replied.
“Way,” said I.
“And Meyer?”
“Oh, you’ll like him,” I said. “He’s really good at this kind of thing, very polished and professional. He’ll probably do most of the talking and the other guys might even defer to him. He thinks well on his feet and comes across as quite genuine.”
“But you don’t buy it?”
“I don’t really know,” I pondered. “I don’t buy the rhetoric, that’s for sure, but I tend to think most of these guys believe they’re being straightforward.”

“Now, Michael Behe, I know him,” she realized. We’d seen Behe and Dembski give talks a while back.
“Yeah, that’s the interesting thing to me about all this.”
“What do you mean?” she said.
“Well, since the events in Dover, I’ve been wondering how they were going to rehabilitate Behe’s image.(1) He took a bad beating there and since he and his flagella are pretty much the ID standard bearers it seems to me they’ll need to prop him back up somehow.”
“Maybe that’s partly what this is about,” I said as I pulled into Parking lot A.

We merged with the crowd meandering toward the auditorium. Some of them were wearing shirts with Bible excerpts on the back.
“Oh, and watch the audience,” I said, gesturing to the people with whom we were entering the hall. “Depending on how it’s played, this whole thing could end up being about them.”

Waiting for the coals

John Bloom, the event’s organizer, took the stage and explained how it all came about. He’d noticed that the best part of similar events he had attended were the Q and A sessions at the end. Reasoning that an entire evening organized around this structure might present some edifying discussion he put together two panels, one comprised of “intelligent design’s” leading proponents and another representing ID’s “toughest critics” (see sidebar). The critic’s panel included Antony Flew - well-known philosopher, Charlotte Laws - columnist and a PhD. in philosophy, Keith Morrison - a television correspondent, Larry Herber - a retired Geology professor, and James Hofmann, Craig Nelson and Bruce Weber.

These last three were the principle critics for the evening. Morrison and Laws described themselves as confused but interested outsiders. Herber made one comment which ended up being more of a clarification of uniformitarianism, and Flew never spoke. It was Hofmann, a Professor and Chair of Liberal Studies at Cal State Fullerton, along with Weber, a Professor of Chemistry and (Craig) Nelson, a lecturer on Comparative Religions (both from CSF as well) who asked most of the informed questions and tried to follow up when possible.

After introducing both panels Bloom had Stephen Meyer come up and present a short primer on ID. This was presumably for the uninitiated in attendance. Judging, however, from the immediate hisses and grumbles that rippled through the audience when Meyer put up a slide which mentioned Richard Dawkin’s it appeared most in the hall needed little help getting up to speed.

Meyer’s introduction was worth noting for a few reasons:

It was not an impartial outline; it was undiluted (and un-rebutted) ID argumentation.
It included his public-relations equivocations that ID proponents are “not necessarily challenging the idea of evolution per se…nor are we necessarily challenging the idea of evolution as common ancestry” and that the differences are between themselves and their “Darwinian colleagues as opposed to generic evolutionists” [All emphasis mine].
And it offered Meyer’s first opportunity to suggest one of the main themes for the evening: technological analogies. These included many mentions of ‘sophisticated cellular machines’ and the genome as digital code (accompanied by the stipulation that the only known design source for digital code is intelligence).

Once Meyer finished Bloom started things off by encouraging a question from the critics. [This format – critic asks question, ID guys answer – could be effective. But it does have some drawbacks, one of which is that the interaction can become tangential and ultimately unprofitable. What I’ve tried to do in recounting the discussion is ignore the ramblings and focus on the advertised purpose of this event: the salient questions asked and the answers given. Further asides and clarifications from me will, as with this one, be bracketed and colored.]

Let the grilling begin

Question (Q) 1 - TV personality Keith Morrison began by asking, “What kind of intelligent being are you proposing, or are you proposing any specific intelligent being?” Stephen Meyer looked to his mates briefly before taking up the question, sort of. After a digression into how the media report ID poorly he explained that there is a difference between the theory and the religious beliefs of those who hold it. He concluded by repeating the caveat that ID infers only intelligence, not a specific entity. [This “we don’t need to know anything about the designer to infer design” rhetoric is quite familiar to ID critics. Of course it qualifies as a reasonable response only in the case that the putative “intelligence” is an evidentially uncontroversial inference, such as with archeological studies of human intelligence. Otherwise it is a spurious argument.]

Thus the first question is met with hand waving and evasion. Not an auspicious beginning.

Q2 - Morrison continued, observing that ID is being embraced by people who take the Bible literally, while scientists and progressive Christians largely dismiss it. He wondered if those on the ID panel were comfortable with that. Michael Behe answered that he wasn’t, but then protested, “Most people don’t understand intelligent design, and try to fit it into pre-existing categories. Certainly that’s true of the scientific community, most people have a skewed view of intelligent design there.” Behe went on to expound on initial reactions to the Big Bang (the first of several Big Bang excursions) and how the cell is “incredibly sophisticated technology” (the second of multiple machine references). Behe can be credited with a half-answer to this question.

After a bit more discussion John Bloom got the Fullerton contingent involved. Jim Hofmann began by noting that the event was being held at Biola (Bible College of L.A.) as preamble to his point that for ID to be considered a legitimate scientific theory it must be evaluated at the relevant conferences and in the appropriate journals. This brought murmurs of disapproval. He then went on to introduce Bruce Weber.

Q3 - Weber presented several slides which documented studies examining exaptation as a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the evolution of “irreducibly complexity” (IC). Eventually he came to his question. Though research on exaptation is a work in progress, still it is still making progress. Where, he asked, is the ID research? And “why would a scientist abandon the productive research program of the Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis for one informed by intelligent design?” Behe responded with the rather opaque observation that what Weber had shown is not really new or supportive research, it’s “just regular biochemistry which is being spun in a Darwinian fashion.” He went on to ignore the question and renew his battle with Ken Miller by way of slides and retreads of previous arguments. Weber interrupted in an attempt to get Behe back on track. Behe ignored Weber again and returned to reinforcing IC. After Weber tried once more to get back to his questions Behe attempted to refute recent research from Joe Thornton.(2) Soon thereafter Meyer jumped in and digressed into possible Type III secretory system arguments, asserted that Behe hasn’t been proved wrong and suggested that proposed naturalistic pathways don’t cut it. [This is part of ID proponents’ continuing attempts to cover the deficiencies of the IC argument by shifting the burden of proof. But the response from biologists is to the in-principle argument that there cannot be an evolutionary explanation, and as such does not call for tested and replicated research, it simply requires empirically defensible hypotheses.]

At this point Paul Nelson (hereafter Nelson) joined the discussion. He continued Meyer’s impassioned defense of Behe by noting that some scientists have taken up their research partly as a response to Darwin’s Black Box. And his pleas for due recognition continued with the pettish assertion that it was the ID people, “the people on this panel,” who have raised the important questions of development of organismal complexity. [It may come as a shock to developmental biologists to learn that their very investigation of such questions owes to the bravery of Nelson and his colleagues in broaching them. This is an example of hubris on the level of Behe comparing his “discovery” of IC to the accomplishments of "Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrödinger, Pasteur and Darwin."]

Nelson directly addressed the crowd as he complained bitterly about “two sets of rules” preventing guys like Behe from publishing in the scientific literature. The audience applauded vigorously. Meyer carried on playing to the house by recounting the unfair treatment received by Richard von Sternberg in the aftermath of his resignation from a biological journal, then pitched some “peer-reviewed” ID publications, and finally asserted that “we cannot take peer-review as the gold standard of scientific literacy.”(3) This elicited more applause.

Hofmann interjected with the explanation that science works by consensus, not popular vote. Meyer seized upon this to conflate those ideas (popular vote and consensus) and attempted to catch Hofmann in a contradiction. Hofmann responded that he was speaking of a “scientific” consensus: the agreement of those with the appropriate education and experience to interpret the evidence. The audience remained unconvinced.

And Weber’s long forgotten question remained unanswered.

Q4 - Trying to get back on track, Jim Hofmann talked about studies on human chromosome #2 and the detailed findings that strongly support a fusion event in the evolution of humans. The point was about the specificity of empirical questions (where, when, and how?) in preparation for his next question. For ID to be taken seriously as a science, Hofmann said, it must address two questions: When did a design event take place and how did it take place?

Meyer quickly responded to this with a protest directed once again to the audience. He complained that design critics set forth rules on the methodology of science, assume their acceptance, and then proceed to dismiss design on that basis. Getting back to the question, he then referred to his own Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (PBSW) paper and said that he believes the Cambrian is a good candidate for when an act of design might have taken place.(4) He added that the origin of life and the origin of intelligence are other possibilities. “So in fact we do say when, and moreover we say how,” he said, “we say it was done by an act of intelligence.” [Of course Hoffman meant that ID needs to address these questions empirically. Meyer’s suggestion that “an act of intelligence” could be a scientifically satisfactory explanation is sophistry. In leaving the “how” at “intelligence” Meyer is ignoring the need to test his hypothesis (a designer) as well as the requirement to establish natural mechanisms by which the intelligent intervention occurred.] Meyer repeated his disdain for the rules of science, suggesting that they may need to be changed in order to accommodate different kinds of explanation.

Jonathan Wells took the ensuing lull as an opportunity to return to the question of “consensus.” He counseled that the American people are “not quite as ignorant as the scientific community would make them out to be,” and went on to argue that because of failed ideas such as geocentrism and phlogiston, and the fact that at one time even Darwinism was considered incorrect we shouldn’t be so willing to trust the consensus. Jim Hofmann responded that those failed ideas were overturned as a result of the scientific process.

Despite Meyer’s sparest of partial answers, another question lingered in limbo.

Q5 - After some discussion of "information," Weber proceeded to ask Behe if the blood-clotting cascade qualifies as a case of intelligent intervention. Behe replied that “these are difficult questions to address,” and we shouldn’t jump to “premature and unjustified conclusions.” Behe went on to say that for all he knows life could have been set up at the time of the Big Bang. Meyer interceded to again mention how intelligence is necessary to build digital code, at which point Weber circled back to the earlier plot and suggested that there are natural mechanisms that produce an increase in information. Meyer decided to answer Weber with a question (Reverse Question 1): “Do you all have an explanation for the information that’s necessary for the origin of life?” Meyer asked. Weber noted it is an active area of research. Meyer repeated the question then scuttled off into an argument about ribozyme engineering.

Behe judged this a good time for him to turn the tables with a question as well, so he asked Weber et al, if they don’t agree that science has reached its limits on these biological questions, “when would you think so?” (RQ2). The audience chuckled knowingly. Meyer complained again about the “rules” of scientific materialism.

Weber’s question received only more questions.

Q6 - Hofmann then asked the ID panel how far they would be willing to go in abandoning methodological naturalism. Nelson agreed readily that science can’t appeal to magic, and then went on to appeal to the vanity of the crowd, musing that “no natural law, no physical process, no algorithm can possibly explain what we’re doing here,” in reference to the evening’s intelligent activities. “It’s not spooky, but it’s not strictly material either,” he said. [Nelson here was summarily and arbitrarily separating human consciousness from conceivable explanation by physical law. Upon evaluation, his point reduces to: “there’s science, there’s magic, and then there’s the non-material causal agency which we like to infer.” Unfortunately, he neglected to explain how this last category is empirically distinguishable from magic.] Hofmann responded that science must operate by way of methodological naturalism otherwise causal inference might be left open to miracles. Behe rejoined with another question: “How would you categorize the [Surprise!] Big Bang?” (RQ3)

Q7 - Hofmann now got Craig Nelson (hereafter C. Nelson) involved. C. Nelson returned to the notion of consensus and asked when the ID guys would consider such a thing important. Meyer answered that they’re not saying consensus isn’t important (in fact they were), they’re saying that the ID arguments aren’t even being considered. Their detractors, Meyer bemoaned, simply appeal to the consensus and never listen to what they have to say. [It didn’t seem to occur to Meyer that what they have to say has been considered and rejected. An excellent reason for which rejection might be non-responsive performances such as the one occurring this very evening.]

Q8 - John Bloom brought Charlotte Laws into the discussion. Laws observed that ID is being pushed into schools and asked the panel for their views as to why. Meyer noted that the debate involves the intersection of cultural and scientific ideas regarding origins and implied that people generally get carried away with the religious implications of ID theory. Laws tried to get back to the question, saying that she thinks the movement might have something to do with a general distrust of science, an observation that science currently appears to be vulnerable, and the influence of postmodernism. She also admitted that she thinks it’s fine for ID to be in classrooms because it’s philosophy, and wondered how the panel felt it should be taught.

Wells remarked that they don’t advocate required teaching of ID. In fact, he went on to say, ID is already in the textbooks. He made reference to a stack of textbooks he has that include a section on ID and asserted “they bash it.” Nelson picked up on this theme, noting that prominent evolutionary biologist George Williams wrote a book in which he discusses whether the vertebrate eye is “wise” design.(5) [Neither Wells nor Nelson indulged the obvious explanation for all this, that biological science has been, and continues to be, assaulted by creationism and at times has responded to intentional misrepresentations. Only a perverse interpretation of “intellectual fairness” would suggest that creationism deserves equal time as a result.]

During further discussion Meyer came back to the subject of methodological naturalism. He opined that this rule prevents us from concluding design. [Of course it does not, archeologists and forensic scientists conclude design all the time. This is another case of ID proponents using ambiguous language to obfuscate and conflate concepts to their advantage.] Then he went on to offer another reverse question (RQ4) asking: “Let’s just say, for the sake of argument - the universe really is designed - would you ever be able to tell, as a scientist, if you held that rule…?” The gathering rumbled its approval.

Law’s query had been largely ignored.

Q9 - Craig Nelson extrapolated from Meyer’s question to ask one of his own, wondering why theistic evolution isn’t an acceptable explanation. Is there some reason God couldn’t have worked in that fashion? Behe answered that God can do whatever he wants. Behe and C. Nelson then exchanged good-natured barbs about which Catholic leaders to follow. Aside from Behe’s dismissive non-answer, there is no response to C. Nelson’s query.

More interplay dealt with Darwin’s use of “God wouldn’t have done it that way” style of argument. Wells took the opportunity to offer further arguments about biased textbooks. [Wells’ integrity on this subject is, at best, in question.(6)]

Anticipating that the end was near Meyer got Guillermo Gonzalez involved, pumping him to talk about his work (who needs critic’s questions anyway?). Gonzalez summarized his book: The Privileged Planet, then confidently stated that now is the best time in history to be a cosmologist (implying this is part of the cosmic design). [Considering that cosmologists throughout history likely each in their time could have said something similar Gonzalez’s statement can be seen as little more than a truism based upon the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge. However, many onstage and in the audience seemed to swallow it with respectful awe.]

Q10 - In wrapping up the evening Bloom reserved to himself the right to ask one last question of the ID panel. “What do you think it would take for intelligent design to be accepted in scientific circles?”

Jonathan Wells answered first. He agreed with an earlier observation that ID needs to be fruitful. He then said that there is real ID research going on around the world. Meyer prodded Wells to talk about his “cancer research.” Wells allowed that he would be doing some ID inspired work that may have cancer implications. Meyer, not content with waiting for the results of the study, proceeded to drive home his point, saying Wells’ work is a “direct application of irreducible complexity and design.”

Paul Nelson answered next. He agreed with Wells, accepting that scientists want to see results and “new knowledge.”

Stephen Meyer followed and took issue with Nelson and Wells. He stated that ID doesn’t need to lead to new knowledge, that ID is already fruitful, and mentioned recent studies that suggest “Darwinism has been unfruitful.” He moved on to assert that ID is attracting a following and implied that it is only the entrenched majority that is denying “intelligent design” its due. This will come, he suggested, as a result of retirement and turnover in academia.

Michael Behe lined up with Meyer. “It’s nice to make a prediction,” he said, but the “question is - does this idea explain what we see?” [Judging from the alternative he offers, Behe apparently does not feel the idea must “explain what we see” in an empirically testable fashion.]

After this John Bloom invited the audience to give the critics (who were offered no chance to comment on the last question) a standing ovation. “They took a lot of heat,” Bloom acknowledged, and the proceedings closed with applause.

I went to a cookout...

Let me emphasize that there was much more discussion than could be captured in this review. I have tried to concentrate on those moments when questions got asked and answers were attempted. For the most part the interaction was good-natured and cordial, and the audience was generally courteous.

That said, let’s look at the numbers: As I tally it, ten significant questions, including Bloom’s softball at the end, were asked (someone else may come up with a different count as there were a few questions that either ended up lost in the cross-talk or subsumed into one of the larger discussions). The response to those ten questions included three half-answers (Q2, Q4, Q10), three evasions (Q1, Q6, Q7), three ignored (Q3, Q8, Q9), and one (Q5) answered with a question (though reverse questions also played a part in other responses). Much of the time was spent in digression into matters of dubious pertinence.

One way to put the evening into perspective would be to note that the ID panel asked more questions than they actually answered.

...and all I got was this bun

The tiny, hopeful part of me that thought, “maybe this time it’ll be different” took a severe thrashing once again. My sardonic side, however, was pretty puffed up after it was over. Most of my pessimistic expectations were fulfilled, not that this is any great feat of prognostication. Familiarity with the history of these events would have led anyone to the same sad prediction.

There was no insight gained this night, nothing new to be heard. In fact, looking back on how few of the questions actually got answered, and the form the responses took, it’s hard to conclude that there is any acceptance on the part of the ID spokesmen that the “tough questions” even exist. They were either dodged, dismissed or met with another question.

One problem with the evening was that the encounter took place in front of an ID sympathetic crowd. It’s hard not to be cynical about the motives for this event when so much of the time ostensibly intended for answering “tough questions” was instead spent reading from the playbook and pumping up the home fans.

But the biggest drawback was the clear lack of fortitude on the part of “ID’s Top Proponents” to candidly engage the inquiry they invited. The critics, especially Hofmann, Weber, and Craig Nelson, tried to press them in many cases, but there was no mechanism for detailed examination such as was available in Dover. Thus, the advertised purpose of the event was well swamped by a tide of tired complaints about persecution, repetition of stock talking-points, and pronounced public-relations efforts to rally the faithful, get Behe back out in front, and give Gonzalez some exposure.

It was a sharp portrait of “intelligent design” as a movement with few guiding principles other than the desire to continue to hang onto political market-share. Though slowed by the events in Dover it’s clear that the ID machine is still rolling, if with no more scientific direction than before.

Notes

1. Memorandum Opinion - Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (Judge Jones findings). 2005.

2. Bridgham, Carrol and Thornton. Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation. Science. April 2006:Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 – 101

3. Von Sternberg is the former editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington who was accused of fudging peer-review so as to publish Meyer’s paper on the Cambrian (see next note). It is alleged by ID advocates that he received prejudicial treatment following this publication and his subsequent resignation.

4. Meyer, Stephen C. Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 117(2):213-239. 2004

5. George Williams, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 72-73.

6. Robert Camp. 2005. Do Biology Textbooks Pit Evolution Against Theism? - A response to Jonathan Wells.

ID's "toughest critics?" (Sidebar to "Grill the ID Guys")

2007-01-06T16:20:00.000-08:00

[This piece appeared in the journal: Reports from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) (Vol. 26. No. 3. May, 2006) as a sidebar to the main article which can be found here.]

ID's "toughest critics?"

At the end of the event at Biola John Bloom, the evening’s moderator asked the audience to give the critics - Antony Flew, Keith Morrison, Charlotte Laws, Bruce Weber, Jim Hofmann, Craig Nelson, and Larry Herber - a standing ovation remarking, "They took a lot of heat." Bloom was not referring to the night’s intellectual exchanges. He was talking about the fact that there had been some rumblings among defenders of science regarding the choice of critics (or perhaps the critic’s choices).

Assuming that this event likely wouldn’t serve its advertised purpose many individuals initially asked to sit on the panel of critics declined. Those who did accept the invitation received some mild criticism for

a) agreeing to dignify the proceedings,
b) not being prominent ID critics, and
c) not having the appropriate scientific credentials (1)

As one of those asked to join the critic’s panel (presumably because I’m local), and one of those who declined, I wanted to take a moment to offer my perspective on this issue.

Taken in reverse order, I find “c” above to be unwarranted overreaction. Although “intelligent design” is unquestionably an attack on the foundations of science, the “theory’s” miscalculations lie substantially in how its arguments are formulated, not in the empirical data. Even the most “scientific” of design arguments involves a tedious cataloging of biological complexity (like IC) that ultimately resolves to arguments from incredulity. Investigating and exposing these problems does not require an advanced degree in science (though it certainly demands a familiarity with the literature).

As for the dearth of more prominent ID critics, there is little doubt that the event would have received more publicity and might have been more intellectually incisive had Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, and Robert Pennock replaced some of the less informed members of the panel. But the truth is that the many difficulties with ID are well known and understood throughout the defense of science community. It’s not necessary or practical to expect Scott etc. to be present wherever the tough questions need to be asked. Local responses to ID can be effective, and from my perspective Hofmann, Weber, and Craig Nelson did a good job overall given the limitations of the setting.

This brings me to “a” - should ID even be engaged in this way? There are those who believe it only helps the “intelligent design” movement to present, as these kinds of events can, an image of scientific equivalence. Others feel that the illogic of ID must be demonstrated, that the spurious arguments should not be left unchallenged. Though I have sympathy for both sides my refusal to participate in the Biola event makes clear which view I favor. The following are my reasons for taking this position.

I was not satisfied that there would be any real opportunity for pursuit of relevant answers. If an event is to be a pleasant experience for spokesmen and audience alike, cordiality and respect must be preserved. But however valuable these qualities are in an intellectual conversation they work against intense scrutiny of individual statements. If there is no mechanism for stopping and evaluating each element of an answer – essentially cross-examination – then responses can be evasive and wandering. I saw no prospect for holding the ID guys to their vow to answer the tough questions.

As much as we all try to cut through to the content, it is an unfortunate reality that presentation influences everyone’s perception of expertise and integrity. These encounters often boil down to personality and performance. Most of the top ID advocates have much more experience, and some are quite good, at this sort of thing. Content often becomes secondary to stage presence.

Most importantly, I regard “intelligent design” as institutionally dishonest. I accept, because it would be presumptuous of me not to, that individual ID proponents may be sincere. But it’s clear that there is an inherent corruption in the house of ID that is ignored in deference to the greater mission. That corruption is the overarching religious impetus behind both the movement’s theoretical content and it’s political activities.

ID may not be methodologically religious, but it is deliberately methodologically unconstrained so as to directly allow religious inference. “Intelligent design” theory exists because of, and in service of, the religious motivations of its “theorists” and adherents. And it is an avowed attempt to redefine science such that it is more accommodating of a religious worldview.

These realities are not acknowledged by an ID marketing machine which prefers to maintain plausible deniability. It’s a thread of duplicity that runs throughout the entire “intelligent design” enterprise and, absent change, will continue to obstruct prospects for progressive discourse.

Notes

1. I.D. Rigs Its Own Trial. 2006. ScientificAmerican.com.

Know what I like about Ann Coulter?

2007-01-03T19:00:00.000-08:00

No, that's not a trick question.

There really is something I like about her. Let me explain.

When I was a teen in the late sixties and early seventies and beginning to become socially aware and active it was just in time to observe as a truly inane meme was finally put to rest. In those days it was still possible to hear some dinosaurs utter the phrase "America, love it or leave it" without the slightest hint of irony.

With the logical and intellectual dismantling of this thoughtless bit of jingoism a climate of disapprobation arose around its use. This was well deserved.

I remember thinking during those days that it was impressive to see progress, if only by a small step, towards more rational discussion take place. It was a time that promulgated such visions of a better world where logic and compassion would eventually sweep away argumentation derived from knotted tendrils of thought distorted by insecurity and prejudice

Yeah, that was then and this is now. I'm older, a bit wiser, and though I can still feel that optimism, I understand that ignorance never really goes away, it just finds a new means of expression. Having an Ann Coulter around helps to keep that point up front in our national consciousness.

[Aside: One might think that after spending so much time dealing with issues like "Scientific Creationism" this observation would not seem so noteworthy as to deserve my attention. In my defense I would just say that for the most part I comment upon "intelligent design," which, though it does have its own bigoted and blockheaded aspects, is a bit more sophisticated than the reflection-free verbal garbage spewed by Coulter.]

Few pundits today serve up such a foul repast as the indomitably daft Coulter. The courses arrive in a blur of indignation, assault your senses with their acrid invective and are removed before you really have a chance to sink in your teeth.

Observe the furious pace of this post over at WorldNetDaily. How deep must the mental waste heap go to allow imputation of treason to the House Speaker, castigation of half of political America as hating their homeland, and characterization of the majority party as pathetic cowards who cannot think beyond their twisted desire to embarrass America and support its enemies, all in the space of three short paragraphs. There's hardly space left in there for an article or conjunction or two.

My, the woman can punch that keyboard (and doesn't it seem fitting to imagine her hammering the keys in accompaniment to defiant outbursts of rage?). Her commentary is filled with such wit and analysis as this quote from a few paragraphs later,

"Now, as publisher of the Times, Pinch [Arthur Sulzberger] does all he can to help the enemy currently shooting at American soldiers."

And later on we find this,

"It [bombing in Vietnam] would have worked, but the Democrats were desperate for America to lose. They invented "Watergate," the corpus delicti of which wouldn't have merited three column-inches during the Clinton years, and hounded Nixon out of office."

Priceless.

This is what I find so refreshing about Coulter. There are no hidden agendas, no layers of apparent coherence to sift through in order to find the nexus of illogic where an argument has gone wrong. There is just naked, brutish ignorance. Nothing to disect, nothing to consider for its value in prompting self-examination.

She may not be cheap, but she sure is intellectually easy.

And as a reminder that coarse obtuseness will never entirely dissappear she stands virtually unequalled in contemporary media. Ann Coulter is a mirror that we could all profit from looking into once in a while (thus resolving to remove that ugly smudge).

She is a national treasure. Long may she wave.

Temporal hubris

2006-12-28T09:44:00.000-08:00

Michael Behe's comments on the possible falsification of "intelligent design" (ID) are currently receiving a good bit of attention from the ID crowd. Though he has made similar statements elsewhere, the specific comments quoted below as well as on several pro-ID blogs are documented in the Case for the Creator DVD put together by creationist Lee Strobel.

"The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened, intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily falsified by a series of such experiments.

"Now let’s turn that around and ask, How do we falsify the contention that natural selection produced the bacterial flagellum? If that same scientist went into the lab and knocked out the bacterial flagellum genes, grew the bacterium for a long time, and nothing much happened, well, he’d say maybe we didn’t start with the right bacterium, maybe we didn’t wait long enough, maybe we need a bigger population, and it would be very much more difficult to falsify the Darwinian hypothesis.

I think the very opposite is true. I think intelligent design is easily testable, easily falsifiable, although it has not been falsified, and Darwinism is very resistant to being falsified. They can always claim something was not right."

Apparently rank and file ID proponents see in Behe's thoughts a rebuttal of some sophistication and profundity. However the problem here, as well as elsewhere Behe has expressed these ideas is that he holds an obviously flawed conception of scientific falsification. It would seem that in Behe's world falsification means something akin to "lends greater probability to my preferred alternative."

This can only happen if one has misconstrued the interrelateness, or lack thereof, of the concepts in question. This common misconstrual goes by many names: false dichotomy, affirming the consequent, and what some are calling contrived dualism. All of which means the same thing - it is a fallacy to conclude that incomplete information regarding, or a failure of empirical investigation into, some particular aspect of evolutionary biology can be considered support for the notion of "intelligent design." The one does not follow from the other.

It is wishful thinking built upon classic gap arguments, and it's the very antithesis of sophisticated and coherent argumentation. It's nonsense, and the specifics of Behe's suggestions (go into the lab and evolve a flagellum) only build even more absurdity into the overall rhetorical confusion.

But Behe's arguments (along with a closer examination of the last link above - hat tip to PvM at the Thumb) do lead me to try to articulate something I've wondered about for a while. Consider that present in any gap argument is the notion that one knows enough to be able to draw deep and irrevocable conclusions. Implicit in an observation of the form: "we don't know how evolution did this, therefore we can infer intelligent design" is the assumption that we know all we need to know about this particular area of inquiry.

Now this is not news. Everyone attempting to dissuade a creationist (of any stripe, from YEC to ID) has, at some point, taken exception to the use of gap arguments. We've all opined in frustration - "But you can't just fill in that blank with your theology, in science it's okay to say we don't know!"

My point is, rather, to observe that while these kinds of assumptions must be implicit in any gap argument I suspect one could not find anywhere a creationist who would be willing to state it explicitly. It would, of course, be rhetorical folly to do so. What's more, I would observe that it is very seldom any of those opposing the gap argument actually go to the trouble of pointing out this particular inherent contradiction (it does happen now and then, of course).

What I'm coming around to suggesting is that we all (even non-theists) share, as part of our time-constrained existence, a sort of temporal hubris that causes us to reflexively view the current wisdom as "complete." [But I'll go on to qualify this observation by saying that for those who do not ascribe to philosophical absolutes it is, to an important degree, easier to escape this kind of fettered approach to knowledge.] We all think a great deal about how much more we know than those who have gone before, but I wonder if we truly invest in wondering how much there is yet to know.

On the above-linked post at the Panda's Thumb, Pim Van Meurs offer this quote from Isaac Newton,

"...the motions which the planets now have could not spring from any natural cause alone, but were impressed by an intelligent agent…. To make such a system with all its motions, required a cause which understood and compared together the quantities of matter in the several bodies of the sun and the planets, and the gravitating powers resulting from thence; the several distances of the primary planets from the sun, and of the secondary ones from Saturn, Jupiter and the earth, and the velocities with which those planets could revolve about those quantities of matter in the central bodies; and to compare and adjust all these things together in so great a variety of bodies, argues that cause to be not blind and fortuitous, but very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."

The reasoning here is indistinguishable from that which leads ID "theorists" to presume that if current evolutionary understanding cannot explain a phenomenon it is therefore attributable to the actions of an "intelligent designer." And it is reasoning that is obviously flawed.

Now my intent here is not to equate Behe with Newton (after all, this is not information theory) except to the degree that we can wonder if this temporal hubris disproportionately informs perspectives shared by all those (from genius to, well...not) who ascribe to some sort of absolute concepts or principles.

Another example (admittedly from the "not" class) is from a panel discussion wherein Guillermo Gonzalez, in summing up his book - The Priveleged Planet, confidently stated that now is the best time in history to be a cosmologist (due to a confluence of factors allowing us to view and understand the universe). Aren't we justified in wondering if it isn't likely that cosmologists throughout history each in their time might have said something similar? And doesn't the act of drawing from Gonzalez' observation a warrant to conclude that we are here on this earth at this time because the universe was designed that way speak to the point that there is an implicit "we know enough to confidently say..." in any gap based argument?

I'd suggest it would significantly broaden Gonzalez' perspective to try to imagine what cosmologists one hundred years hence might be saying...and what they might know that he currently dismisses as irrelevant to the conclusions he wishes to draw.

To return to Behe then, it's clear that a large flaw in his argument lies in the temporal hubris that provokes a dismissal of a possible future generation in which a better informed creationist might say "though we now know for certain that a flagellum can be evolved without direct intelligent input, the type III secretory system is another matter altogether!"

I suppose it's a truism to observe that we all view historical significance through the lens of our own existence. However it seems that creationists (in this case ID proponents such as Behe) have developed this to a high, self-referential, art.

But gaps in empirical understanding have a funny way of shrinking with time. It's the nature of science, unencumbered by an obeisance to preconceived absolutes.

...and I don't even believe in Him

2006-12-21T08:39:00.000-08:00

There's a bit of hand-wringing over the consequences of the Blasphemy Challenge going on at Uncommon Descent. A couple of posters (here, and here) are apparently distressed over the long-term fallout from the Challenge, in which one uploads to the web a video of his/her denial of the existence of the "holy spirit."

Now I happen to think the Blasphemy Challenge is a silly stunt (though it does have the small benefit of helping to foster a cultural environment in which it's okay to talk and think about these things freely). But as I read those who anguish over this activity it's hard not to imagine Hollywood B-movie scenes of natives recoiling in fear and covering their heads as the white explorers arrive and inadvertently step on their graven images - "Umm...Steve? You're standing on their God."

What if these "blasphemers" someday renounce their atheism and become Christian? - the UD posters whine.
What will they hear when they come to the pearly gates? - they whimper.
What will become of their souls? - they wail.

To which I respond - what the hell kind of God do you worship?

I spend a fair amount of time defending the great silent bulk of Christianity as non-literalist, non-science reactionary, non-bigoted, non-Old Testament regular kind of people just trying to go through life with enough of an eye to traditions they hold dear to give meaning to their existence. But sometimes I wonder if there isn't a bit of fire and brimstone in nearly every Christian's conception of God. Perhaps it's inevitable given the reverence for the Bible as a whole.

It seems that I, as an atheist, have more respect for the concept of God than they do. What god worth worshipping would hold someone accountable for a bit of tomfoolery they spouted when they were young? What kind of omnipotent god is incapable of looking beyond its own petulance to see what is in the heart of a petitioner? What sort of all-loving deity chooses eternal punishment over everlasting forgiveness?

Look, if you're going to believe in God, at least try to get over this childish fascination with a lightning bolt wielding, flame throwing Scourge who's going to show all those infidels the error of their ways. The entire concept of supernatural entities is untenable enough without saddling it with all these savage notions of tribal retaliation.

Doesn't your god deserve to grow up?

A year ago today

2006-12-20T07:51:00.000-08:00

[It was a year ago today that the Kitzmiller ruling came down from Dover. The confluence of the coming holiday and the palpable feeling of success that swept through the defense of science community led me to write and post the following piece last December. Re-reading it made me feel warm and toasty all over again so I thought I'd reprint it on this anniversary.]

Christmas came five days early this year

[6:30 AM, December 20th, 2005]

I don’t know how long I stood there at the door, a cup of tea in one hand and my mouth agape.

“Well,” he said, his voice betraying a distinct, if good natured, hint of frustration “are you going to ask me to come in?”

My lips formed something incomprehensible, but I managed an affirmative nod. As I moved aside he entered, his short round frame unaccountably filling the space.

“I didn’t come all this way to stand at your front door,” he huffed as he looked around my living room for a chair. Where he walked candles lit and Christmas lights came on by themselves. The fire brightened, the room took on a glow.

“Yeah, don’t mind all of that, it’s just a side effect of my conditioning program,” he waved as he sat down, “got to be at my physical, mental, and magical peak on the evening of the 24th, guess I’m throwing off a lot of powerful pheromones right now.”

I stared blankly.

“Anyway, I know it’s early, but I couldn’t wait to see your reaction,” he said. I must have narrowed my eyebrows because he continued, “you know, to your gift!”

Finally my brain was beginning to function well enough to instruct my mouth to form actual words, “gift?” I squeaked hoarsely.

“Oh, did I catch you before you got on the web this morning?” he said. I awkwardly turned and pointed at the computer with my cup hand, spilling the tea and babbling incoherently. “Okay, okay, no problem,” he said, “Off you go and we’ll chat after you’ve had a chance to catch up.”

I stood frozen. He walked over to me, pushed my lower jaw back up with an index finger under my chin, and said again, “Off you go,” while pointing at the computer cabinet.

The word was all over the web. Judge Jones in Dover had come back with a sweeping decision in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Board of Education case. “Intelligent Design” was creationism, not science, he ruled, and it did not belong in the high school science curriculum. I was thrilled at this tremendous news. Jones’ decision was quite a broad one, setting an important precedent for those legal challenges that were sure to follow. In this one skirmish at least, science and reason were the clear victors.

An hour sped by as I scanned the decision, at times almost forgetting about the rotund red guy looking over my shoulder and giggling whenever I excitedly quoted from the text. Eventually I came up for air, sighed, and turned to look at him quizzically.

Walking back to his chair, he raised an eyebrow and explained, “you’ve hoped for this all year, haven’t you? Well, this and that silly soldering iron thing.”

“Hey, it’s cool to the touch in only 1.8 seconds,” I protested, finally summoning up the nerve to put together a complete sentence. But that wasn’t really what I wanted to talk to him about. I pulled another chair over to face him. The room smelled like gingerbread. Those are some great pheromones, I thought.

After clearing my throat I asked, “It seems like this is about more than just my reaction. Do you have a personal interest in this issue?”

“Do I…” he trailed off in exasperation. “Son, do you know of whom I am the modern manifestation? Do you know what he stood for, who he was?”

I gathered my thoughts and responded weakly, “I, uh, I think so.”

He continued, his voice a mix of pride and devotion, “The patron Saint of children, that’s who. I’m all about children, crazy about them. Heck I even brought you your gift five days early!” I thought that last bit was a little uncalled for, but who would know better than he that in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve I still got out of bed every year to check and see if there were more presents under the tree than when last I looked.

“What’s more, I respect children. And that means I value their right to the best, most honest education available.” The ambient jingling level in the room had increased, and he was standing now, getting on a good roll.

“How do you suppose I feel when I see creationists, however good they believe their intentions to be, attempting to misinform and misguide not only their own kids, but other’s? I feel like I’m watching them do these children a genuine injury.” With the last word he shuddered.

After a few seconds, he finally calmed, and sat again. All the bells and music boxes and little clinking things around the room settled down as he did.

He was quieter now, looking off into the distance, “I know what it does to their minds, it closes them to the wonders of the universe, makes them insular and afraid…” I could barely make out the whisper as his eyelids fell, “…I see them when they’re sleeping, I know when they’re awake.”

We sat in silence for a few moments. Then his eyes focused, and the familiar smile lit up his face. “Let’s just say it’s wonderful news for almost everyone. It’s not the end of this, of course…,”

Feeling more at ease, I jumped in, “No, that’s for sure. They’ll be back, probably more determined than ever,” and this observation prompted another thought. As I followed him toward the front door, I said, “you know, it occurs to me that the Dover decision means there are creationists out there who won’t get what they want for Christmas.”

He looked at me with quiet confidence, as a teacher would regard a student who naively thinks he’s discovered a glaring inconsistency. “Oh, they’ll still have their merry Christmas,” he said, “but of course I cannot give everyone everything that they wish for. There are some wishes, like a child asking for a car, or Pat Robertson pleading for the power to smite his foes, that must be considered in the context of the greater good.” He hitched up his belt and headed out, saying “I do my level best, but there are some desires I can’t fulfill.”

I held the door as he jingled past, “And while we’re on that subject,” he paused in the entryway and looked me in the eye, “maybe it’s time to stop wishing for the hops to slam-dunk, eh?”

“Oh, um,” I glanced sheepishly at the floor, poking at some non-existent something with my big toe, “I wondered if you, uh, knew about th…”

“Well, sure I did. But it’s okay,” he patted my shoulder and sympathized, “at least you finally stopped writing me those “NBA for just one day” letters.”

As he left I felt compelled to say, “So, this decision in Dover, I know it’s really not for me. I mean, it’s really for those kids in Pennsylvania and wherever else ID might come up. That’s what this is all about, right?”

He stopped and looked back at me, “What’s the difference? This is a win for everyone. I’m all about making people happy, so think of it in whatever way makes you happy.” He squinted sharply over his glasses and said with a wink, “Whatever floats your boat!” just before he disappeared around the corner.

I closed the door softly and smiled. “Cool,” I thought, strutting confidently back to the computer, “he got my letter about the boat.”

Methinks thou doth...oh cripes, has anyone ever protested this much?!

2006-12-15T18:58:00.000-08:00

In the interest of honest self-examination I've got a question to ask of myself and, by extension, those who might share my positions on "intelligent design." The question is prompted by that gender-confused ID proponent over at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene. He/she begins a recent post with this,

"Okay, since most critics can only hear "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written, things have becomes more complicated in the Post Wedge World. For now it appears that we have at least four types of ID critics."

Now the rest of this post is pretty much just glib, forgettable nonsense of the "there are (x) kinds of people in the world" variety. But the opening sentence, pregnant as it is with bruised sensibilities, is worth taking a moment to consider.

[Let's get a bit of housekeeping out of the way first: We are not in a "Post Wedge World." Although the marketing boys over at the DI wish it were not so, the Wedge is every bit as relevant to the political activity that is the ID movement today as it ever was. When will these guys get it through their heads that no matter how often they decry invocation of the Wedge, as long as their tactics and goals come straight out of that foundational document critics of ID will be justified in calling attention to it.]

Anyway, back to the question at hand: Do I "only hear "God/religion" when "ID" is spoken or written?"

My preliminary answer is an easy, if somewhat coy, No.

Let me explain.

When I hear an archeologist discussing a spear point or arrow head or artifact of some sort, and he says "...and so, the reason we know this is intelligently designed is..." I can honestly say I never think of God or religion. Likewise when I hear a forensic criminologist give his opinion that "This crime was one of intelligent design, it was not a case of accident or negligence..." it simply does not occur to me to connect this statement with theism or deities of any kind. The same logic follows for written cases of similar context.

But of course that kind of intelligent design is not what MG means. He/she means the ID movement. The one that proponents have told us time and again is not about religion at all.

[Which observation reveals an interesting counterpoint: we have scientific disciplines which deal with intelligent design all the time and for some reason they suffer no problem with this unfair conflation with religion. Would this perhaps be because they employ scientific methodology, e.g. hypothesis and testing, and/or because they recognize that central to any hypothesis of intelligent design is a recognition of the need to evidentially establish and understand the designers in question? It is not misdirection or digression for me to deal with intelligent design and "intelligent design" this way in response to MG's assertion. It goes, in fact, exactly to the point of why ID cannot be conceived of apart from religion.]

In any case, the truth is that my answer to the reconsidered question must be: Of course I immediately think of God/religion when I hear "ID." Only if I declined to think rationally in considering all of the available evidence, only if I wore blinders and ignored the very words of ID's most prominent "theorists," and only if I disregarded their pronounced and prolonged arguments in favor of changing the foundational methodology of science to allow for non-natural inference could I even begin to think of ID without religion popping along for the ride. I have been trained to conflate the two by the words and actions of ID proponents.

So, yes, things are complicated in an IDer's world. And it's a bit of complexity that has been somewhat less than intelligently designed.

Hmm...how 'bout that...no thoughts of God that time.

Hey Chuck! - Can we give Jesus a break for the holidays?

2006-12-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I’m a heathen, but I love the holidays. So take this: Merry Christmas to all!

There I’ve said it, and not with sarcasm but with sincerity. I’m crazy about Christmas, always have been. Even after I became an atheist.

I always knew that there were other, more overtly secular ways to acknowledge the season. But I never imagined not celebrating Christmas. It was an integral part of my childhood. It was a mountain summit that beckoned during the long, uphill trudge through the rest of the year (especially school in the Fall). And to be honest, it was never a particularly pious observance in my house anyway. Though we went to church most Sundays, Christ played a pretty small role in the Christmases of my youth.

So I never considered not celebrating Christmas, even after eschewing religion. Nor have I ever thought myself hypocritical for doing so. And I’ve never felt particularly proprietary about the season. In that spirit, then, let me also wish everyone a happy Hanukkah and a felicitous Kwanzaa.

That done, I’d like to suggest, meekly mind you, that it couldn’t hurt for some of our conservative religious brethren to throttle back on the holiday testosterone just a wee bit. The threat level is not high, it’s not necessary to rush down to your local recruiting station and sign up to defend Christmas, regardless of what everyone’s favorite bad-ass bard, Chuck Norris, says in a post over at WorldNetDaily. That lovable kick-boxing, keyboard punching palooka has taken up the most overblown, nonsensical non-issue of last year - the supposed "War on Christmas," and run with it...over a cliff.

It’s obvious, of course, that the notion of a war is all out of proportion (apparently in Chuck’s world the sky is not only a different color, it’s falling all around him). But it’s true that there is something of a skirmish going on.

Why is it that as Valentine’s day, July the Fourth and Thanksgiving continue to go off without a hitch, Christmas seems to grow a bit more disputatious every year? Why should we see spitball crossfire over the hap-happiest season of all?

There are several reasons, a big one being the desire on the part of retailers to embrace the spirit of the holiday while disenfranchising as few walking wallets as possible, resulting in such obvious ploys as the awkward “Holiday Trees!” Even though I am disposed to appreciate a multicultural approach, I too gag at such marketing not, as with the religious, because I am offended by the sacrilege, but because it is so vacuous.

Perhaps, though, the more fundamental issue underlying this annual commotion is the fact that Christmas itself is something of a hodgepodge of influences. The Chuckster will try to tell you otherwise, as he does here at the end of his screed,

“To me, it also stands for ''Jesus” [the letter J], without whom there would be no Christmas at all.”

But the truth is that Christmas, or something like it, would likely still be rolling around every year, even without Jesus Christ.

The history of the yuletide (Scandinavian pagan origin), replete with its ornamented trees (Romans and Germans) and mistletoe (Celts and Druids), is one of multifarious influence. The Christmas we know today is the result of bi-directional sharing of customs drawn from diverse mid-winter celebrations. As such, there can be confusion about the derivation of many of the holiday’s traditions. Even the true date of the birth of Christ is unknown. Some scholars place it in early January, and some put it in April. It has also been suggested that the December 25th date is the result of a bit of cross-pollination with Hanukkah.

In fact, considering the contemporary holiday environment, the most broadly Christian aspect of Christmas is arguably not Christ. It is that jolly target of humbugs both secular and sectarian - Santa Claus. Imported from the Dutch and derived from Saint Nicholas, the patron saint of children, old jelly-belly upholds an early December celebration of yore in which kids were the focus, gifts were given, and a feast was held. Sound familiar?

The point here is not to diminish the fact that, for many, Christmas is about the reverent celebration of the birth of Jesus. It is to observe that the philosophically and culturally diverse Christmas crock-pot bubbles with ingredients of disparate origin. Sure, Jesus Christ is part of the mix, but so is a lot of other stuff.

This allows plenty of latitude to those who wish to emphasize non-theological aspects of the holiday. It’s as legitimate to celebrate selflessness and sacrifice on the 25th as it is to venerate sinlessness. It’s as meaningful to wish for peace on earth and goodwill toward men as it is to espouse the spiritual rewards of a redeemed afterlife. Heck, if you’d rather hug a tree than decorate it you’re covered too.

I just wish guys like the Chuckmeister could give poor JC a break for the holidays. Celebrants of many denominations (or none) have a claim to the season, just not an exclusive one. That concordance is, in my opinion, what makes this the best time of the year. I’m guessing even Jesus would appreciate a diversity of traditions that manages such cross-cultural good cheer.

Happy Holidays indeed.

"Teacher says: 'Every time an experiment fails, "intelligent design" prevails'"

2006-12-06T07:00:00.000-08:00

The ID assault on science and reason continues to be built upon desperation and misunderstanding. Of course, with "DaveScot" mounting the argument what else would one expect?

Not only do nearly all of ID "theory's" most popular public assertions reduce to gap arguments - i.e. biologists cannot tell us how some structure or function evolved so it can be attributed to "intelligent design" - but now we are being told that the failure of research to produce answers can constitute the consummation of an ID prediction. (A similar tactic was tried by Michael Behe when he suggested that biologists go into a lab and try to falsify ID by evolving a flagellum - expecting that the failure to do so would support ID.)

Not satisfied with current gaps, ID proponents are laying claim to future ones as well. Check out the following from the above linked UD post,

Harvard Origin of Life Project: An ID Prediction

In a nutshell they are setting out to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals.

If ID is true then it predicts the Harvard project will fail. This is based on the ID hypothesis that the complex patterns found in the basic machinery of life are too complex to come about without intelligent guidance.

Now if I may be so bold as to ask that ID theorists be allowed to make predictions based upon their own theory, and detractors are gracious enough to let us make our own predictions, then I don’t want to hear any more nonsense about ID making no predictions. This is a prediction. It will play out soon enough. Let the chips fall where they may.

Okay, let's agree up front that this is indeed a prediction. DS is suggesting that the Harvard Origin of Life (HOL) project will fail to produce definitive naturalistic answers. And any ID proponent will, of course, see that this is as a result of disregarding the design hypothesis.

But in what sense can we say this is an ID prediction? In the event the HOL is a bust can this be legitimately interpreted as direct support for ID?

I would suggest that for any prediction to be considered supportive of the design hypothesis it must be drawn from actual theory and connect back in some demonstrably empirical fashion to the tenets of that theory. But there is no testable, verifiable body of ID work to which we can link data and call it confirmation of a scientific prediction. In order to test "complex patterns found in the basic machinery of life are too complex to come about without intelligent guidance" we would need to have established empirical referents for the proposed purposeful activity. ID proponents offer us natural analogs, but of course these are not indicators of the kind of design they wish to infer, and do not suffice to support any prediction of "intelligent design."

The failure of the HOL is therefore no more the fulfillment of an ID prediction that life cannot begin without a designer than it is the fulfillment of a prediction that life cannot begin without the flying spaghetti monster, or the legendary invisible pink unicorn, or even a nice hunk of cave aged gruyere (Mmmm...subterranean cheese...argleargleargle).

There is virtually nothing in ID that we can hang any prediction on. There are no mechanisms for the design process, we know nothing of the designer(s), there is naught but a collection of gap arguments, and gaps in our knowledge are already predicted quite nicely by an understanding of scientific methodology and a smidgen of common sense.

The only forecast that can truly be drawn from ID is that the end of investigation of the universe, when we finally know all that can be known, will come without ever having produced evidence for the natural origin of life.

Now that's a gap that might someday be worth talking about (call me when those chips actually fall), but it's hard to get too worked up over right now.

New article in NCSE's "Reports"

2006-12-05T07:58:00.000-08:00

Check out the latest issue of Reports from the National Center for Science Education for an article of mine detailing the doings at the May 12th 2006 "Grill the ID Guys" event at Bible Institute of Los Angeles (Biola). You may remember that this was billed as an encounter wherein "intelligent design" spokesmen would answer "the toughest questions" ID critics could muster. As you might suspect, reality turned out to be a bit different from the advertising.

Included is a sidebar with my perspective on the choice of ID critics for the night as well as my reasons for declining the invitation to participate.

There is also a lot of other great stuff in the issue so go out and find one, or better yet, join the NCSE if you're not already a member.

---------------

Update - The NCSE has put the article up online. You can check it out here, but I still urge everyone to join the organization. If you were happy with the decision in Dover, a lot of your gratitude is owed to these folks.

That reminds me, I need to re-up.

The coexistence of reason and faith - Harries seems to be making it work

2006-12-01T10:27:00.000-08:00

I was led to this clear-headed and straightforward "Thought for the day" from Bishop Richard Harries by way of a passage cited in Sean Carrol's new book "The Making of the Fittest." (A good read so far)

Good morning. In 1860 there was a famous meeting in Oxford on the subject of evolution at which a predecessor of mine as Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, the scientist, took opposing points of view. Wilberforce was a well-informed amateur scientist and did not think that the case for evolution had at that point been made out, so he opposed the idea. However, it soon became clear to most thinking people that the earth was not, as it were, simply plonked down ready-made, but that it had evolved gradually over a very long period of time. Indeed historians of science note how quickly the late Victorian Christian public accepted evolution. It is therefore quite extraordinary that 140 years' later, after so much evidence has accumulated, that a school in Gateshead is opposing evolutionary theory on alleged biblical grounds. Do some people really think that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy to hoodwink the rest of us?

I find what this school is doing sad for a number of reasons. First, the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it. This was quickly seen by Frederick Temple, later Archbishop of Canterbury, who said that God doesn't just make the world, he does something even more wonderful, he makes the world make itself. God has given creation a real independence and the miraculous fact is that working in relation to this independent life God has, as it were, woven creation from the bottom upwards: with matter giving rise to life and life giving rise to conscious reflective existence in the likes of you and me. The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator spirit.

The second reason I feel sad about this attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth is that stops people taking the bible seriously. The bible is a collection of books made up of very different kinds of literature, poetry, history, ethics, law, myth, theology, wise sayings and so on. Through this variety of different kinds of writing God's loving purpose can come through to us. The bible brings us precious, essential truths about who we are and what we might become. But biblical literalism hinders people from seeing and responding to these truths.

Then there is science. Science is a God-given activity. Scientists are using their God-given minds and God-given creativity to explore and utilise God-given nature.

Sadly, biblical literalism brings not only the bible but Christianity itself into disrepute.

I post this because, as I've said previously, I believe that religious defenders of science and reason are key to meeting the challenge of pseudo-sciences such as ID and creationism.

In addition, it struck me that this man's words might serve as a useful barometer for where many of us stand on one of the hot topics under discussion right now across the science blogs - that being the question of whether it is either good science or good tactics to oppose religion itself as we oppose some of its less savory offerings, e.g. creationism.

Are we from the "Neville Chamberlain school" of science defenders if we suggest that Harries efforts in service of science need not be disregarded because of his religious beliefs? Does giving credence to the opinions of someone of faith, regardless of whether those opinions comport with ours, simply postpone (maybe even add to) the eventual undermining of reason?

Or is it fervor of a nearly militant stripe to suggest that reason and faith cannot co-exist, that opposition to theism is inextricably linked to defense of science? Is "evangelical atheism" (a phrase that I use because of its ubiquity these days, not necessarily because I think it accurate) assuming the recognizable trappings of just another insecure ideology?

Some of my views on this can be found here.

It's not an issue that's going to disappear any time soon. But fleshing out some of it will help us figure out how to move forward from here.

DI's Luskin - "What I don't know...can't hurt my argument"

2006-11-29T08:15:00.000-08:00

Hi, I'm back.

I'll try to deal with what's been happening in my absence, as well as lay out where I'd like this blog to go in the future, in a later post.

Right now I just want to put the last bullet in this horse that's been stumbling around the DI p.r. blog lately - that being Casey Luskin's suggestion that the University of California at San Diego required all incoming freshmen to attend a November 14th lecture by noted ID critic Robert Pennock.

Luskin has made much of this supposed indoctrination, a notion Ed Brayton deals with quite nicely. But everyone's still dancing around the issue of whether all UCSD freshmen were required to attend the event. What I find hard to believe is that Luskin could manage no independent confirmation or denial of the facts, settling instead for asking friends and relying on hearsay. One would think the DI spokesman was less interested in the truth of the situation than how much hay he could pile up over it. He even went so far as to suggest that it's the ID critics who are obsessed over this issue.

But of course this isn't the case. What Luskin and his buddies are doing, as usual, is creating a phony controversy that essentially amounts to "Please, someone, take us seriously!"

Here's what I did, and what Casey could have done very easily. I contacted each of the UCSD colleges (sort of sub-colleges within the university structure, one of which would be "6th," the college that actually did require their freshmen to attend as part of a year-long cultural studies program) and asked them if their incoming freshmen were required to attend the lecture. The answers I received included "no, our freshmen were not required to attend" and a firm "only 6th college freshmen were required to attend."

So after about ten minutes worth of investigation I settled the matter. Is Luskin really so busy that this effort was beyond his reach, or was he simply, in his capacity as ID shill, following through on a job that owes more fealty to ideology than truth?

(Yeah, I know, that's just a rhetorical question)

PZ Meyers and Ken Miller - Time to rethink "supernatural?"

2006-09-12T09:50:00.000-07:00

In spite of being on the right (by which I mean evidentially supported) side of this issue, we experience our own rows and infighting now and then. Despite my current posting difficulties, I managed a quick check into the latest doings and discovered that there’s been some sparks flying over remarks made by PZ Meyers and others concerning Ken Miller’s comments about atheists, creationism, miracles etc. (those of you not familiar with the intellectual positions of these individuals will need to go get the backstory on your own).

What one has to appreciate is that they are trying to find understanding, not merely spitting and barking. PZ has insisted that science must be conducted from a methodologically and operationally naturalist perspective and Miller has tried to make it clear that he agrees with this. But Miller’s faith keeps getting in the way. One of the difficulties under discussion is the disposition of miracles.

It is my opinion that the problem here comes not from PZ’s intractability or what some may see as Ken Miller’s flexibility in applying logic. I think the problem lies in how we use, interpret, and discuss the supernatural and its examples (including “miracle”) and euphemisms (hereafter simply "the supernatural").

If we can agree that profitable dialogue between skeptics and believers in supernatural phenomena is a desirable thing then we need a definition of the word, a way of viewing the concept, that allows both sides to discuss the issue without having it become a rhetorical opera of Wagnerian proportions.

The "supernatural" is not (a truism here, I realize) a part of empirical reality and therefore cannot be discussed casually as a thing in and of itself. It is simply too ambiguous and confusing to use a word which in essence describes all that's left over after you've eliminated the observable, measurable universe. The only way that term or its examples can have any meaning in a discussion including non-believers is for it to be brought into a context that is not self-refuting (from an empirical perspective). That would be the context of personal experience.

It is my suggestion that, at least for the purposes of debate, we reframe the “supernatural” as follows: The cognitive insulation from falsification of a belief or set of beliefs.

If a concept or phenomenon is open to invalidation by way of natural investigation then it can hardly, in my opinion, be reasonably referred to as supernatural. What self-respecting believer in the divinity of Christ, the sanctity of cows, or even the Thetan ancestry of humans would accept the possibility of disconfirmation of these tenets by scientific methodology?

To be sure, believers often assert that a particular phenomenon is the direct result of intervention by their preferred supernatural agency and propose tests of the phenomenon. But consider, for example, an experimental protocol designed to investigate whether there’s a significant measurable healing effect to be found in remote prayer subjects. It’s reasonable to wonder what it is, exactly, that’s being tested. Think of it this way: should numerous, sweeping studies demonstrate a decided lack of evidence for the efficacy of remote prayer, do we really expect that those who invest prayer with transcendent power would revise their beliefs? Surely they would suggest the negative findings merely reflect a failure of natural investigation. If so, then it’s a fair question to ask if we were ever really testing “the supernatural.”

When the weight of evidence falls against a hypothesis meant to test supernatural agency, yet the believer’s concept of that agency emerges unscathed, then it becomes clear that the belief itself is effectively isolated from disproof. I submit that this is the essence of “supernatural.” It’s not about the details of scripture, or icons, or pictures of humongous footprints; it’s about the degree of investment a believer makes in these things.

The reality is that when science investigates faith healing, or dowsing, or bigfoot lore, it is really only evaluating those natural facets of the belief system that are left open to falsification. Any actual “tests” of the supernatural occur only in the mind of the believer, and long before the application of our methods of investigation.

I’ll be the first to admit there are some problems with this approach. For example, my definition leaves qualification open to a startlingly wide range of ideas. I’m not sure it’s particularly helpful to those discussing ramifications of theological belief systems to have to deal with the consequences of a definition of supernatural that might include “nose hairs grow faster if you cut them.”

Obviously people are fond of, and cling to, all sorts of crazy notions that they refuse to lose, and I’ll concede that calling these conceits “supernatural” seems a bit too broad. This might be avoided by including a qualifier (e.g., “metaphysical belief”) in the definition. But it does tickle my skeptical fancy to propose that something could be learned from suggesting that “the bread always falls butter-side down” and “God helps those who help themselves” are not so ontologically dissimilar as they might at first seem.

However, there is a more important difficulty that I should address. It may seem to some that I’m trying to define “the supernatural” out of existence (pun intended), trying to force the believer into a position where he must defend belief in giddy hallucination. But, quite the opposite, the idea is to locate a methodological point of departure from which both the believer and the skeptic can be satisfied embarking.

Provided both accept that science is and should be a methodologically natural process and not a philosophical injunction (scientism), we can frame the discussion such that neither is required to cede rhetorical ground at the start. If the PZs of the world can acknowledge that a believer may experience sensory data that is not accessible to science (a position consistent with MN), and if the Ken Millers can assent to the reality that it is through their unique, non-quantifiable, personal experience that they have come to “know” the extra-natural (also consistent with MN), then we have a place to begin. As long as we approach these phenomena from the perspective of their residence within the mind of the believer we can treat them, for the purposes of discussion, as both real and beyond empiricism.

The idea is to develop an approach to the concept that preserves both the integrity of believers and the skepticism of non-believers such that there can be fruitful discussion. This re-conceptualization puts the “supernatural” in its properly understood context – a phenomenon of human cognition. There is no implied judgment of the individual’s choice to believe, nor does it admit to any empirical obligations external to that belief.

Some believers will not accept this because it doesn’t bow to their righteous certainty. And some skeptics won’t accept it because it doesn’t allow for preemptive dismissal of putative supernatural phenomena. But I see it as a way to facilitate talking with, instead of past, each other.

An atheist's defense of religion

2006-08-15T10:08:00.000-07:00

An argument I’ve made often and continue to believe in is that protection of biology from the assaults of creationism and its offspring (“Intelligent design” for instance) will be achieved largely through the efforts of those religious individuals who understand, and make the case for, the peaceful co-existence of faith and science.

It has been my perception that theists (especially theistic scientists) are more likely to have considered deeply the boundaries of science and religion and understand with particular clarity the limitations each entails regarding its ability to comment on the other. This is understandable given the inherent vested interests. It’s also these individuals who are most likely to, through their experience with faith, have the cachet needed to gain a measure of attention from those more fundamentalist sorts who would dismiss less sympathetic sources.

Thus have I many times invoked names like Francisco Ayala and Kenneth Miller as credible authorities for an anti-evolutionist’s honest investigation. Along with citing these individuals as useful resources I have also suggested that it would be useful for the defense of science if people such as they would speak out more frequently and forcefully. Theists defending science set a powerful example.

Well, a recent event has convinced me that the inverse proposition is also true. It would probably be just as positive a contribution to the debate for atheists to defend the value of religion. As theistic scientists can accept that science has much to offer the world without sacrificing their faith, so do I believe that religion can make a positive contribution to the human condition and still maintain my steadfast confidence in scientific methodology.

Let me begin by making clear what I mean when I say that I am an atheist. I use the word understanding fully that for some it provokes negative connotations. I am willing to live with these unfortunate preconceptions, though, because I prefer not to accept the intellectually spineless image (unfair to be sure) that accompanies the label - agnostic. As I apply it to myself, then, the designation atheist means that based upon the evidence available to me I can find no reason to believe in a deity of any kind.

A conversation with a believer with whom I have been working recently made it clear to me that he had interpreted my professed atheism as an active faith in the non-existence of deities. I inferred this not because the sentiment was overtly communicated, but rather because of his sincere apology to me after expressing a religious notion within the context of our talk. In essence, he realized he had said something that (he thought) might offend me.

Of course I immediately assured him that not only had I not taken offense but it was a subject that I quite enjoyed. It occurred to me then that the same dual benefit achieved by the public statements of theistic scientists – reassurance that science and religion can be compatible along with a furthered understanding of the limitations of both – could be equally supported by non-theists speaking out in defense of religion.

For the same reasons that scientists of faith are not beset by cognitive dissonance I am able to maintain that religion can be a viable and valuable human endeavor. The epistemic limitations of both “ways of knowing” lock out fundamental contradiction. Science is method. It is an operational tool for discovering natural reality. As such it is limited in scope. Science can comment only upon that which can be observed and measured. There is no operational capacity within the methodology of science for evaluation, much less dismissal, of extra-natural ideas. And as science can never be complete, it can never rule out extra-natural possibilities.

Theology, to the degree it relies upon the extra-natural, deals substantially with morality and message. It addresses understandable human concerns about the nature of their existence and, regardless of whether the message is evidentially or logically supported, is capable of offering contentment and direction to those in need. On the other hand, when theology proposes to make statements about nature, which only science is configured to address effectively, it must be prepared to cede ground. Belief in a thing can never be enough to demonstrate its factuality.

Science and religion operate in different spheres of influence. When they come together, as they do now and then, in collision or confluence, it is because of the conceits and misconceptions of humans, not any inherent compatibility or contradiction.

In making the case for religion from a less philosophical perspective, it seems clear to me that one thing none of us, atheist or theist, wants is for a massive population of flawed and fallible humans (as are we all) that believes it cannot act ethically without religion, to try to do so. The last thing we need is a bunch of people who believe they have no internal moral compass running around without their external one.

As atheists or agnostics we may feel that a believer is misguided in his acceptance of things unseen, but we have to acknowledge that science, by definition, leaves the set of things unseen unaddressed, and consequently in no way disproved.

If one accepts the methods of science one accepts that knowledge is provisional – that one can be wrong. If it’s possible to be wrong, even about something so apparently fanciful as a deity, then the belief in a deity exists as an intellectually live alternative to an atheist’s provisional philosophy. An acceptance, even a spirited defense of that live alternative shows both the intellectual confidence to take in and consider ideas antithetical to one’s own, and an openness to a universe that will never be completely known.

Temporary Blog Break

2006-07-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

Greetings from Gun Lake, Michigan.

Temporary blogging break in progress while I deal with a large project that takes all of my time and this short Michigan vacation which breaks it in two. I've been keeping up with the doings in the ID/Evo debate as much as possible but there will necessarily be several more weeks before I can actively return to the fray.

During the interim I'll try to contribute a new cartoon or two. For those who have taken the time to join the NCSE (and if you haven't you should do so right away) keep a look out for an upcoming issue of their journal - Reports from the National Center for Science Education - which should include an article I've written describing the fun at the May 12th "Grill the ID Guys" event at BIOLA.

Stay safe, think good thoughts about the Middle East, and don't let the enemies of science get away with anything.

Take care.

Some cartoon ID rhetoric sets up another cartoon

2006-06-09T08:04:00.000-07:00

Right there in the middle of William Dembski's concerted efforts to restore some semblance of order and respectability to his wayward blog (Uncommon Descent), DaveScot pops up with another of his silly vengence-motivated spleen exudations. Normally he and the other sycophants over there aren't worth the ATP expenditure in typing, but I did notice a couple of his points which represent the more daft wing of ID argumentation and thought it might be fun to poke them with a stick.

In response to someone who asks what Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez have been up to, he says,

"No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors."

How's that for a goofy bit of argument from really-really-really inappropriate and unqualified authority?

He goes on,

"What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. "

Ah, yes, the incisive and thoughtful "...it is intuitively obvious..." argument. Coupled with the previous assertion, DS has summarized the two strongest arrows in the ID quiver - "We know it when we see it, and lots of big shots see it, so pbthththththt!"

He finishes the above paragraph with this,

"ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative."

Of course the "ludicrous contrary narrative" he's talking about here is the product of a couple hundred years and thousands of man-hours of research and documentation which establish the empirical reality of evolutionary biology. Call me crazy but I think that can withstand the intellectual challenge of two Bushes and a Perry.

More importantly, this "ludicrous contrary narrative" is the result of a sea change in how science and religion were viewed. It's the result of a cultural imperative to take convenient but errant "intuition" out of the mix when investigating empirical reality. It's the upshot of centuries spent trying to leave the shackles of superstition behind.

But back to the good-old-days of supernatural explanations is just where most of the ID crowd would like to take us ("Hey, it's okay to let superstition back into science, but just in this one area."). And this regressive mindset dovetails nicely with another I(neptly) D(rawn) cartoon I've just finished.

ID 'Toons #4 - D.I. Time Machine

Gay-marriage bans - This one really is black and white

2006-06-06T08:07:00.000-07:00

Here's a line from a letter in today's (6/6/06) L.A. Times. The writer favors a same-sex marriage ban.

"The family is the fundamental cell of society and has its source in marriage."

Now, I don't think that this observation is beyond argument by any means, but what really baffles me is that anti-gay zealots see it as persuasive to their position. Consider these paragraphs from two homosexual letter-writers in the same section:

"According to President Bush, I'm a threat to society. I live in Burbank with my partner and our two girls. We are employed, pay taxes, vote and, besides a random parking ticket, obey the law. I'm an American, and I even have a family: a mother, a father, two sisters, nieces, nephews, grandparents, aunts, uncles, a wife and two kids. We even have two dogs."

and:

"So now the Senate takes up the so-called Marriage Protection Amendment to protect marriage from me. I'm gay. I'm in love with a wonderful man, and we've been together nine years this week. We are blessed to be raising a daughter, who just learned in preschool that in America we believe in liberty and justice for all, and how we're all created equal. There are already laws preventing my legal marriage. And just like those embarrassing laws against inter-racial marriage, isn't that enough for all our kids to look back and wonder how people could be so prejudiced?"

Seem like just the kind of people we want getting married and contributing to the "fundamental cell of our society," don't they? Yet the anti-gay writer would ferociously oppose their legalized unions. That's because by his logic the "fundamental cell" is perverted when gays lie at its center, not because they do not uphold the tenets of good, productive marriage, but because they are gay.

So the anti-gay rhetoric is once again exposed for what it is - prejudice, plain and simple. The underlying reality here is that there are, to my knowledge, no arguments against legalized gay marriage that do not reduce to ignorant discrimination.

Support for gay-marriage bans is a clear-cut case of socially acceptable bigotry flourishing in a country that prides itself on freedom and justice. It is an obvious wrong against which all sane voices should be raised.

More on SETI and ID

2006-06-03T09:32:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to note that some interesting and provocative discussion has been sparked by references to my article (Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way SETI is?) in the recent issue of Skeptic.

At both The Panda's Thumb and Uncommon Descent can be found posts which consider the issues in the piece (it's interesting to compare the measure of thoughtful commentary vs. sarcastic dismissal in Pim Van Meur's Thumb entry and Dembski's at UD). Following each are threads with contributions that in some cases comment directly on the piece and in others discuss extrapolations from the ideas therein. Thoughtful responses arguing both in support of and in opposition to my position can be found on each site (a refreshing departure from the norm for the UD blog).

If you find the subjects (SETI, ID proponents' use of analogy with particular sciences, ID methodology) interesting check out those discussions.

Also be sure to read Seth Shostak's (real SETI scientist) opinions on the subject.

I think I'm starting to enjoy this

2006-06-02T08:30:00.000-07:00

Yet another in a series that I feel compelled to give a name - (I)neptly (D)rawn 'TOONS

ID 'TOONS #3 - The Intelligent Design Cafe

"Intelligent causation" continued

2006-06-01T09:56:00.000-07:00

A few days ago I posted a commentary on the continuing use of arguments about scientific exclusion of intelligent cause. These assertions are made by "intelligent design" proponents who wish to accuse ID critics of committing the patently absurd blunder of disregarding the possibility that natural phenomena can be the result of intelligent intervention. Of course scientists do not do this, they uniformly accept intelligent cause but do not make the mistake (or use the tactic, in the case of ID advocates) of conflating natural intelligence with any putative non-natural intelligence.

This subject has been taken up on Ed Brayton's blog, with Paul Nelson (one of those I identified as using the flawed argument) in the comments section trying to further explain this position, saying,

"...the "intelligent causation" in question [...] is intelligence as a causal primitive, i.e., irreducible to other fundamental categories (chance and necessity)."

Now this sounds impressive but what does it really mean? Do we know that intelligence is "irreducible to other fundamental categories?" Of course we don't know that. Cognitive research is a work in progress but it has certainly not met such broad empirical obstructions as to force us to conclude that intelligence, consciousness and the human experience are not amenable to investigation and eventual explanation.

This characterization of some ineffable core of consciousness (Nelson's "causal primitive") lying at the heart of intelligence is a conceit of personal philosophy, not a scientific observation.

Nelson demonstrates that he knows this (as, I assume, do the other "theorists" using the argument) later in the comments when he says,

"I disagree with you, Douglas, about what "most people" think about the ontological status of intelligent causation, and frankly, neither of us knows -- but I'd guess that, except for the really wild-eyed eliminative reductionists like Dawkins, "most people" regard their own agency as irreducible in some strong sense."

He admits that "neither of us knows," which means his suggestion of a "causal primitive" is really nothing more than another argument from ignorance, another God-of-the-gaps ploy.

Nelson goes on, above and in the following quote, to discuss some of the socio-political reactions to notions of cognitive evolution.

"Now, they may be wrong about that, but that's their intuition. One reason ID has become so popular is the wide perception that runaway physicalism (for instance) is just crazy, and moreover dehumanizing. From an ID perspective, it is not a minor matter whether, on analysis, "intelligence" dissolves away into other causal categories."

What is Nelson really saying here? I submit it boils down to this - "It doesn't matter what science tells us, the fact is that there are those of us who wish to preserve our intuition that there is something special about us."

I think those who would have a problem with this, taken as a philosophical or theological perspective, would be very few. Of course the difficulty comes when someone like Nelson believes that this perspective should inform not only his philosophy, but the personal and professional choices of others, and acts on that belief.

As he does every time he argues for the biological relevance of ID.

Time to climb into the fish tank and sing Jerusalem

2006-05-29T08:33:00.000-07:00

"Did somebody say "intelligence" to Mr. Camp?"
"Twice!"

There's a typically nutty Monty Python skit (I believe it's called the "Buying a Bed" sketch) in which a typically loony Python character, Mr. Lambert, puts a bucket over his head every time someone says "mattress." Thus does everyone who works with him (in the bed department of a store) endeavor never to say the word, and they encourage prospective customers to say "dog kennels" when asking Lambert about mattresses. If a mistake is made, the only thing that will prompt him to remove his pail is to get into the fish tank and then sing the song Jerusalem - "And did those feet, in ancient times..."

Well, I live in the real world not the Python universe, so I'm not particularly interested in constantly dealing with euphemisms. I'm so tired of hearing "intelligent design" proponents say "dog kennels" I think of myself as an exasperated reverse Mr. Lambert. And I suspect it will take an awfully large fish tank and a lot of people to turn this around.

Of course their "dog kennels" is the word "intelligence." They incessantly conflate the conventional meaning of this word with the preferred inference of their "theory" in a duplicitous attempt to create rhetoric which supports the intuitive unambiguity of a non-natural designing agency.

During a May, 2006 event at Biola ("Intelligent design under fire") Stephen Meyer answered a request from Cal State Fullerton's Jim Hofmann for specifics such as "how" and "when" by saying,

"So in fact we do say when, and moreover we say how,” he said, “we say it was done by an act of intelligence."

Not only do they continually offer these sophistic statements, they draw disingenuous argumentation directly from them, asserting that scientists who resist ID are defining intelligent causation out of the empirical picture. Paul Nelson used such specious reasoning in this characterization of his opponent's views (from another debate near L.A., see more on this and other issues here),

"So my disagreement with these guys has relatively little to do with evolution and a great deal to do with what kind of philosophy of science we're going to adopt. Are we going to allow for the possibility of intelligent causation when all of us know that could have happened? That's what science should do. Science should be free to follow the evidence where it leads."

[Going for extra points, Nelson manages to include another bit of ID marketing-speak at the end. See here for more.]

Stephen Meyer also used this suggestion that scientists dismiss intelligent cause in his debate in Seattle with Peter Ward. Many other ID advocates make use of the argument. But of course it is utter nonsense.

Intelligence is well accommodated by science. Archeology, forensic sciences, and cryptographical disciplines could not exist were it not for the uncontroversial assumption of intelligence cause acting as part of, and in concert with, the natural universe. Scientists investigate intelligence and its products (designs) all of the time. There is established methodology for doing so.

Every time ID advocates accuse scientists of disallowing the possibility of "intelligent causation" they brand themselves as either ignorant or intentionally duplicitous. And most are not ignorant.

All that integrity requires in this situation is for guys like Nelson and Meyer to say what they really mean when discussing these issues. But should they petulantly protest the methodological disqualification of "supernatural intelligent causation" then the horse (which is already out wandering around the paddock) will be officially acknowledged to have left the barn.

Of course my, and scads of other people's, frustration at their deceit will be absorbed into the growing list of results of questionable means that are justified by their ends. But evasiveness and dishonesty will eventually close many initially receptive ears, and pretty soon the burgeoning ranks of people with buckets on their heads will be too big for any size wet-footed chorus to recover.

"And was Jerusalem builded there.
Among those dark Satanic mills?"

"Stop me...before I draw again!"

2006-05-17T20:45:00.000-07:00

ID 'TOONS #2 - Brothers

Yeah, I know it's painful,
but think of it as reframing
the question of evil. I mean,
what kind of God would
allow me to put stuff this
bad on the web?

Changing my 'toon

2006-05-15T18:30:00.000-07:00

Well, had I known cartooning would result in this much fun I would have ignored my paucity of talent long ago and scribbled away. It appears that one of the crew over at the Home for Wayward Sycophants (Ed Brayton's wonderful coinage) believes he has caught me in a shallow understanding of the issues depicted in my little sketch of a few days ago. The irony of this is too broad yet delicately balanced for me to ruin by explaining the content to my erstwhile critic. But if anyone is interested be sure to read his comments.

All I'll say further is that the last thing I would have imagined with the creation of this cartoon was that I was being too subtle.

Another fun aside is a comment (#4) left by one of the Sycophant's sycophants to the effect that while the notation on the biologist's board looks impressive it is really "unintelligable [sic] nonsense." Of course those familiar with population genetics will know that the equations in question actually deal with base pair fitness calculations.

Surely this means I have to do another cartoon, maybe more than one. And if the boys over at the HfWS can guarantee their attention and analyses I know it will turn out to be a gleefully productive enterprise.

Now, where's my pen?

Meyer and Ward debate - Less than meets the eye

2006-05-14T09:20:00.000-07:00

After hearing all the crowing coming from the ID camp over Stephen Meyer’s victory in Seattle I thought I’d go to the tape. Meyer, director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, and Peter Ward, a paleontologist and author at the University of Washington got together for a lively, lightly moderated back and forth on evolution and “intelligent design” on local Seattle TV.

The discussion was generally cordial, though certainly unreserved. There was plenty of sparring and some biting humor, but as Ward noted at one point the two are friends so they were not going to come to blows.

Meyer delivered his usual polished performance while Ward was very much less effective from the point of view of presentation. He often resorted to incredulity that someone might say such a thing as had just been said, repeated himself, and several times appealed to scientists and friends in the audience for confirmation and commiseration. Meyer won on style, but then Meyer always wins on style.

The thing was, all of this didn’t really kick in until I sat down in front of the last third or so of the debate. Previous to that I’d been listening while working and kept wondering how anyone could have thought Meyer won so handily. Ward’s comments were brief, but substantial. Meyer went on at length but said very little. It really speaks volumes for the nature of this kind of event when one listens to what is said and avoids the personal presentation. One learns quickly why those who’ve been through this many times insist that the truly efficacious debate takes place in written form.

But it is true that Ward appeared to run out of spirit, and steam, as the debate wore on. He became more and more impatient. In the end, I’d have to admit that Meyer came off as more coherent and responsive, if not better informed.

There were some interesting moments, and I did manage to note a few comments.

There was this from Meyer,

“When we argue for design, we’re not arguing based on a negative assessment of the powers of various naturalistic mechanisms, natural selection for example. It’s not just a critique of natural selection – “this is so complex natural selection couldn’t produce it, therefore it was designed” – that’s not our argument.

We do critique the relevant naturalistic hypotheses, as to their explanatory power with respect to, for example, these exquisite machines or circuits in cells, or I think even more importantly the digital code in cells.”

This bit came when Meyer was trying to defend the notion that ID is more than merely a gaps argument, that they go beyond simply arguing about what evolution cannot do. Long time observers of the “intelligent design” movement will nearly gag at the audacious dishonesty of the first couple of sentences. And most will notice that the next bit, meant as a contrast, allows us to reduce Meyer’s point to – “ID is not based on an argument against a naturalistic explanation, it is based on an argument against a naturalistic explanation.”

He continues,

“But we’re also making a positive case for design based upon our knowledge, not our ignorance, our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world. It is part of our knowledge that there is a cause that is sufficient to produce digital code. We know that that cause is intelligence.”

Taken on its merits this means logically that Meyer is arguing that humans or some human-like intelligence created the digital code. Of course this is not what Meyer intends as he indulges in the now time-worn and very disingenuous ID tactic of deliberately conflating “intelligence” and non-natural causal agency such that an inference to the supernatural sounds altogether uncontroversial. Meyer knows that his is not a scientific argument, and we can assert that he knows this because he has argued forcefully elsewhere that scientific methodology is unfairly restrictive of ID methodology. Yet he offers his metaphysical speculation as proof of a positive case for design.

He resumes this misdirection later on when he says,

“The test is - what theory best explains the information embedded in DNA, where best is determined by what we know of the cause and effect structure of the world”

Critics of ID have been asking for an example of how the "theory" could be tested for quite some time now. Ward repeated this question and the above bit of fantasy is Meyer's answer.

Notice how any possible explanation here is restricted by Meyer to that which we already know. Meyer would have us consider an example of an unexplained phenomenon, disqualify the condition that current knowledge is incomplete (“We don’t know”), and still require that we come up with an answer. This, of course, leaves us in the epistemologically unfruitful position of accepting either that science explains the phenomenon or that we must draw an explanation from non-scientific methodology. Boiled down then, Meyer's answer amounts to "we know that humans design digital code, so in the absence of a complete empirical explanation we must conclude that the genetic code was "intelligently designed."

How convenient for Meyer and his ID cronies that for those cases where we may lack some detailed biological data, he has a supernatural inference all ready for us to adopt. How inconvenient for Meyer that this is not how science works.

All in all I’d have to say that if one is interested in substance this is not a particularly useful debate. This has nothing to do with the fact that Meyer is better here than Ward, I’ve watched and enjoyed many debates wherein the science side is outperformed stylistically. However, if you want to see just how little it takes for ID proponents to jump out of their seats and yell “slaaaaaam-dunk” have a look, just don’t expect to be edified.

What if they held a colloquium on ID, and nobody bothered to discuss ID?

2006-05-11T20:49:00.000-07:00

I had the opportunity to attend a colloquium at the University of California at Irvine the other night which included talks by Paul Nelson and Ralph Seelke representing the ID/creationist approach and followed with an interesting but, in the end, rather unproductive panel discussion.

I wasn't well prepared to take notes (it was a last second decision) so I cannot report specific statements, but I will make a few observations based upon my impressions.

-- The tone was pleasantly polite. This made for willing conversation during the panel discussion and confident questions and answers at the end. But there was something missing. I do not want to be seen to be urging confrontation and histrionics, but it is unavoidable that there are some seriously difficult questions that arise in the course of a collision between ID and mainstream science. Unfortunately these questions were not addressed. In fact for the most part they were not even acknowledged.

An example: when Professor of Ecology/Evolutionary Biology Timothy Bradley started off the panel discussion he summarized Nelson's position on the age of the earth and the common descent of biological organisms as being consonant both with his own and that of modern science. He was apparently unaware that Nelson is a young earth creationist, and Nelson made no attempt to set the record straight. The ensuing discussion was not crippled by this strange oversight, but, for me at least, it was rendered a bit surreal.

There was a good bit of this kind of talking past each other going on during the discussion and I think it derived from the rather mismatched assemblage of individuals. Nelson and Seelke are an unusual pair of ID spokesmen (although I must say that I found Seelke's presentation very interesting and expect we will be hearing his name cited quite often by ID proponents). The three speakers for the side of mainstream science were all knowledgeable but fell into the trap of discussing scientific minutiae while broad unwarranted assumptions or conclusions went unchallenged.

An example again: after Bradley had made a creditable attempt to get Nelson to state his alternate model and how it would be tested Nelson responded with some typical circumlocutions in the middle of which he said (something along the lines of) - "When we invoke intelligence we don't have to provide any mechanism..." This dodge is one of the most critical flaws in the reasoning of ID proponents. It leads to all sorts of relevant avenues of discussion including whether ID is legitimate science, whether natural evidence can lead empricially to non-natural phenomena, and whether science should remain operationally materialistic.

These paths were never pursued. The same thing happened later when Seelke offered (something along the lines of) - "When something looks designed, it a pretty reasonable conclusion to say that it was designed." A statement chock full of unwarranted assertion and unsupported assumption.

At the end someone on stage asked if anybody's mind had been changed. No one raised a hand. Not a surprising result but I had to wonder, based on the disconnected feel of the discussion, if anyone's perspective was ever really challenged.

-- Nelson is personable, knowledgeable and courteous. His demeanor pretty much set the tone for the evening, and he should be credited for this. But he is also a credentialed philosopher, and as such he must be aware that every one of the points he presented, both in his talk and during the panel discussion, amounted to an argument from incredulity. There was simply no there, there. Virtually everthing he said could have been paraphrased thus - "It all just seems so farfetched!" The implied (false) dichotomy, and lack of critical discussion of ID went substantially unchallenged.

-- The two speakers I found most interesting were the aforementioned Seelke and Gregory Weiss, a Professor of chemistry and molecular biology who spoke knowledgeably about RNA evolution. Neither, though, indulged in any particularly deep reflection on ID and its ramifications.

In fact, that pretty much sums it up. I'm not saying the evening should have been full of it, but just a little sound and fury would at least have signified something.

"Put down the pen, and slowly back away from the desk...no sudden moves!"

2006-05-09T09:21:00.000-07:00

My first, and some may hope only, attempt at a cartoon. Remember, throwing things at your monitor only hurts the one you love.

Going through the (handwaving) motions - Gonzalez' response to Seth Shostak

2006-05-02T22:14:00.000-07:00

At IDthefuture Guillermo Gonzalez has offered a supposed response to Seth Shostak’s recent article about ID and SETI called “We Believe in ET, not ID.” Shostak is a senior astronomer at the SETI institute who has begun to take personally the repetitious insistence from ID “theorists” that “intelligent design” is scientific in the fashion of disciplines such as archeology and forensics, and SETI.

Shostak appears in the film version of Gonzalez and Jay Richard’s book “The Privileged Planet,” an ID friendly compilation of arguments from cosmological incredulity (e.g. “if the earth wasn't right where it is, and if the solar system had fewer or more planets, and if the laws of physics were slightly different…etc., we wouldn’t be here”) and he isn’t happy with a clip of him describing SETI being used as tacit endorsement for “intelligent design.” Nor is he thrilled with the continued comparisons of his research with ID methodology. In his article he says,

“Appropriating my day job wasn't the end of the insults. Last year, ID adherents released a one-hour film, Privileged Planet, that caused a minor brouhaha when plans were announced to screen it at Washington's Smithsonian Institution, a few blocks from the Capitol. To my chagrin, I appear in the film, though I say nothing about design, intelligent or otherwise; I simply describe my own research - spliced in, presumably, for the modicum of credibility I bring.

Unlike many Europeans, who find this whole debate faintly farcical, I am not amused. Teaching ID in biology class muddles science with metaphysics. In a country that rides high on technical proficiency, that's serious business.”

In ostensibly taking issue with Shostak’s blunt piece, Gonzalez directly addresses few, if any, of Shostak’s comments, and generally meanders about repeating standard ID talking points. His most egregious miscalculation comes right in the first paragraph where he suggests,

“Indeed, ID employs design detection methods employed for decades in other specialized sciences (e.g., cryptography, forensics, archeology), where prior intelligent causes are inferred from observations.”

This is, of course, patently false. Cryptography, forensics, archeology and SETI are scientific in that they operate on the basis of methodological naturalism, presuming that the putative intelligence they seek to study exists in the natural universe and can be observed on that basis. In addition these disciplines follow appropriate methodology wherein they observe, hypothesize, and test. ID inferences to an “intelligent designer” are hypotheses left untested. As such their conclusion is assumed and their methodology is utterly unlike legitimate science. More about this here.

Gonzalez makes another rather half-hearted attempt at relevance later when he writes,

“Shostak writes that SETI researchers look for narrow band transmissions as evidence for extraterrestrials (unlike design theorists who look for complex information). But there’s more to the story. His friends Frank Drake and Carl Sagan were thinking of something else when they transmitted a radio picture message toward the globular star cluster M13 in 1974. Clearly, they expected their transmission to be interpreted as coming from an intelligence, not so much because it was narrow band, but because it carried a message. Today, if we received a narrow band transmission from outside the Solar System, most scientists would probably remain skeptical, at least until it could be shown that it contained an encoded message.”

Now there are two problems with this argument. One – his supposed “more to the story” has nothing to do with Shostak’s point about SETI methodology differing substantially and significantly from that of ID. And two – he’s quite wrong in what he asserts regarding Sagan and Drake.

To begin with, no one expected anything as to the end-line interpretation of the 1974 Arecibo message. The message will take about 20,000 years to reach the M13 cluster, and the cluster itself will have long departed from that position once the message arrives. Drake and Sagan (who actually had very little to do with the event, but the ID guys do love to bash him, don’t they?) sent the message as a demonstration of current technology and a celebration of the reopening of the Arecibo transmitter. Consider Sagan’s comments about this,

“The Arecibo message was clearly not intended as a serious attempt at interstellar communication, but rather as an indication of the remarkable advances in terrestrial radio technology."

But Gonzalez is right in his last statement at least. Most scientists, including Shostak and his colleagues, would be skeptical of a received narrow band transmission at first. What remains to be established is that this is in any way a counter to anything put forth by Shostak. Gonzalez is merely waving his hands and trying to sound responsive while saying little of consequence.

He goes on to say,

“Design inferences stand or fall apart from any decisions about who the designer may be.”

This is misleading. To say that design inferences stand apart from decisions as to the identity of the designer is significantly different from the usual ID line that such inferences can be legitimate in the absence of any information whatsoever about the designer. I don’t know whether Gonzalez is hedging his bets here or has awkwardly phrased standard ID boilerplate, but even his softened statement flies in the face of the analogy he wishes to make with legitimate sciences such as archeology. Decision regarding the designer are the salient part of naturalistic investigations of intelligent activity and cannot be so blithely dismissed. For ID to be scientific, it must test its hypothesis, it must establish the nature and identity of its designer. Without this, no inference of design can be considered empirically supported.

Gonzalez finishes up this barely engaged piece with a slightly strange expression of appreciation for Shostak’s (apparently unwilling) participation in his film and a summing up of his book in this one sentence,

“Our place in the cosmos is fine-tuned not only for life but also for making a range of scientific discoveries, and the best explanation for this is intelligent design.”

Thus is one long argument from incredulity neatly encapsulated. And the argument is as vapid as Gonzalez’ “response” to Seth Shostak.

Pianka postscript - Dembski's descent

2006-04-18T09:08:00.000-07:00

In all of the dust-up over Eric Pianka and Forrest Mims little has settled out such that we know anything for certain. What it seems to me we can fairly sure of is that,

1. - Pianka, while being admirably willing to discuss difficult topics that others blithely brush aside as manifestly inappropriate, is positioned on ecology's philosophical fringe and cannot be taken as representative of the scientific community (if in fact he can be taken seriously at all).

2. - Mims, along with a large flock of creationist chicks following and pecking at the ground behind him managed to make a lot of idiotic and overblown statements in their zeal to impugn the "atheist" scientific community.

But there is one individual who, from my reading, has managed to escape much-deserved scorn (although, to be fair, he did receive a lot of appropriate derision for scooting down the street on his tricycle to tell the FBI about big, bad neighbor Mr. Pianka and his plot to take over the world).

Of course I'm talking about William Dembski and this extraordinary remark which entitles his blog entry touching off the whole affair,

"Would “Dr. Doom” be conceivable apart from evolutionary theory?"

This scurrilous and sophomoric attempt at guilt (and misanthropy) by association would be laughable were it not so pathetic, and is diagnostic of ongoing decay in intellectual integrity on the part of the accuser. Dembski, in aligning his perspective with those cretins who charge "Darwinism" with producing all of the worlds ills from Hitler to pedophilia seems determined to throw away any tatters of respectability he might have left.

His decline parallels that of ID. Not so surprising considering that at one point he was their standard bearer.

"Big Questions" for ID

2006-04-13T21:29:00.000-07:00

One of “Intelligent design’s” most voluble “theorists,” William Dembski, is fond of a dialectical device whereby he lays out a list of Big Questions intended to offer serious challenge to his target - usually evolution by way of random mutation and natural selection. Of course in these cases the problem perceived by Dembski invariably turns out to be based upon a misapprehension begotten of his ideological propensities. In other words, his supposedly difficult questions can, and have been, answered.

Turn about is fair play. In the course of observing the ID movement I have, at various junctures, run across what I believe are fundamental flaws in the logic of ID proponents. And it seems to me that these observations lend themselves quite nicely to the Big Question device. Additional motivation comes in the form of an event being held at Biola University on May 12 in which many of "intelligent design's" leading theorists will bare their chests to the pointed questions of the movement's "toughest critics."

Thus am I roused to emulate Dembski’s method (though hopefully not his dismal performance).

Here goes,

0th question - Nearly every prominent ID theorist has, at one time or another, expressed disatisfaction with methodological naturalism (MN), regarding it as unfairly restrictive of alternative explanations. Many, if not all, of those same theorists have stated categorically that ID methodology does not invoke supernatural agency. Please explain why an investigation of a non-supernatural designing agency would require the restructuring of scientific methodology (MN).

1 – For those who suggest “common design” as a reasonable explanation for common descent – hypothesize a biological datum that would falsify “common design.” Regarding this datum, please explain how you know the designer could not or would not design in such a fashion.

2 – Scientific investigation identifies a set of observations that require explanation, hypothesizes a causal agency for the observations, then tests the hypothesis. ID identifies the observations and hypothesizes the causal agency, but refuses to perform the actual science by testing the hypothesis. Name another science that operates in this fashion.

3 – Methodological naturalism is considered unfairly restrictive by ID proponents. Please suggest a method by which science could accommodate inference to the non-natural and remain operationally potent. In other words, explain how we can empirically establish a direct causal connection between natural phenomena and non-natural agency.

4 – Many proponents of ID include cosmological phenomena as evidence of design. Please suggest a class of cosmological “designer” which would not contradict the ID movements’ long running repudiation of necessary inference to the supernatural (religion).

5 – ID proponents insist that we need know nothing of the designer in discussing design. Hypothesize an example of a scientific inference to intelligent design that can be made without any knowledge of the designer. Describe this “design” using arguments that neither directly nor indirectly suggest methods, motives or the nature of the designer.

6a – If ID can be viewed as a reasonable inference in the case of a lack of natural explanations, why do we not do the same for all other cases of incomplete inquiry?

6b – If an ID inference is arrived at as the result of a methodology which eliminates natural processes, how does the ID theorist justify the presumption that this methodology is comprehensive enough to allow him to discount any possible natural explanation?

This list is neither offered as comprehensive nor assumed to be rhetorically bulletproof. I welcome comments from both sides of the aisle and fully expect to revise and extend these remarks.

ID and SETI - Latest issue of Skeptic

2006-04-06T11:16:00.000-07:00

Just a quick mention that an article of mine dealing with the use of SETI (and other legitimate sciences) as analogous with "intelligent design" is now available in the latest issue of Skeptic.

It was previously noted here that this article - ID and SETI, Can Intelligent Design Be Considered Scientific In the Same Way That SETI Is? - can be accessed online at the eSkeptic site. But I'd like to encourage those interested to purchase the magazine if possible. My article appears in a special section addressing ID along with pieces from Richard Dawkins, David Brin, and Burt Humburg and Ed Brayton. Jason Rosenhouse from Evolutionblog also contributes a chronicle of his attendance at a YEC conference. These are serious people with important things to say about ID and creationism.

Another reason I'd like people to pick up the issue is to support what Skeptic has been doing in this area. Michael Shermer and the other editors at Skeptic have been devoting a significant amount of space to dealing with the problems raised by contemporary creationism. Perhaps we can mitigate the cost of their efforts somewhat.

It's not like Skeptic isn't already a great read without the ID stuff, and it's not like you should only read it when they address ID, but if you are concerned with this particular subject and need some extra motivation to crack open your wallet consider my comments above.

Try it. If you don't like it I'll stand on my head and eat a bug.

Are we merely biological automata?

2006-03-20T15:45:00.000-08:00

I recently watched an interesting panel discussion called The Journey, Searching for our Origins, Part 1 in which Dr. Alan Wallace, religious studies instructor and Buddhist discussed various 'isms (objectivism, monism, universalism etc.). He gave the following description of something called the Closure Principle and elaborated on its implications.

"There are no influences in the physical universe that are themselves not physical...where it gets very interesting is in the brain, are there no non-physical agencies, are there no non-physical causes in your choice to come here tonight, in the type of person that you may marry?

Is it purely a matter of physical causation, your genetic background, your brain chemistry in interaction with the environment and that's the whole story, that's a complete picture of everything you ever do? In other words are you a biological automaton?"

Wallace goes on to attribute the Closure Principle point of view to most neuroscientists and suggests that this position (which he sees as a fear of non-material consciousness) is a result of historical tragedies involving inference to demons and ghosts and goblins.

I think this point is debatable but I'm more interested in the last part of the quote. It strikes me that a large measure of the fear underlying ideological resistance to cognitive science (and evolution) is the worry that our consciousness may in fact be reducible to strictly physical processes.

Contemplation of this possibility produces the fretful notion that we are nothing more than "automata," a word meant, in my opinion, to express distinct negative connotations. But even if our lives are reducible to the material I don't see how it follows that their inherent meaningfulness is diminished. Whether meaning comes from non-material external influences or emergent properties of atoms it is still something we attach to our existence and use to inform our choices.

Isn't Wallace's choice of words here merely a reflection of his own insecure vision of truth? And in the spirit of reduction, isn't this just a molecular version of the "I don't come from no monkey" plaint?

ID vs. methodological naturalism - Time to retire this feeble argument

2006-03-14T20:41:00.000-08:00

“Intelligent design” proponent’s hot-footed gymnastics over methodological naturalism continue. Without (apparently) realizing that an ongoing campaign to restructure MN undermines their claims that ID does not appeal to the supernatural new circumlocutions regarding the epistemological inequity of scientific methodology appear regularly. A recent post on UD offered a link to the following commentary.

The faith of the methodological naturalist

The basic articles of faith for a methodological naturalist go something like this:

We have found excellent naturalistic explanations for many phenomenon in nature.

Therefore - we believe every phenomenon in nature will have a naturalistic explanation.

Therefore - we make it a strict rule that science is exclusively the study of possible naturalistic explanations for what can be observed in the universe.

You’ve got to love that willingness to start building a strawman right there in the title. And his second and third “articles of faith” help plenty with the stuffing.

Of course some methodological naturalists (presumably scientists and those who have confidence in science?) believe that “every phenomenon in nature will have a naturalistic explanation“ but it’s painfully obvious that not all who use scientific methodology believe this since many are theists. Thus, science is in no way committed to the second “article of faith.”

As such, the third “article” does not drop out of the second. In fact his third point is less accurately stated as a rule about exclusivity than it is as a result of history. Never has a non-naturalistic explanation panned out as science. Science is an attempt to understand things empirically. Empirical understanding depends upon testing, which in our experience has always depended upon the natural reality of the phenomenon in question. When ID proponents can demonstrate how research could operate otherwise (e.g. offer methodology for testing non-natural phenomena) science will be happy to accommodate the data.

Science is not the search for the truth about the origin, operation and destiny of the universe it is limited exclusively to purely naturalistic explanations of the origin, operation and destiny of the universe.

It is not immediately obvious where the distinction is here. The author appears to be proposing that there exist truths other than those which can be discovered by science. This may well be true, but set in opposition to the methodology of science, as it is here, the assertion merely creates a false dichotomy, not an empirical observation, and certainly not any kind of logical argument.

The methodological naturalist will choose a naturalistic explanation over a meta-nature explanation to be taught as the truth in science lessons even if it is not actually true.

And we delve even deeper into the world of flawed arguments based upon assumed conclusions based upon preconceived notions. The author is rapidly losing touch with reality here. For his assertion to have any value at all it has to be assumed that there are known verifiable “truths” which contradict that which is understood by science. We know the author believes this is the case (as he is certain there must be a “designer”) but he appears unable to understand that his belief cannot stand as support for the argument he is trying to fashion. Additionally it is proposed that the methodological naturalist is at some point faced with a choice between natural and meta-natural explanation. This is complete nonsense. Anyone using scientific methodology recognizes that this choice (should it exist) is outside the purview of science.

Thus for a methodological naturalist it is perfectly reasonable possibility that in science lessons it will become necessary to teach children what is in fact not true and what is in fact known to be untrue for the sake of meeting the methodological naturalism criteria laid out by the grand assembly of the interplanetary science council.

Okay, now this is getting surreal, but I’ll attempt to stay on point. No methodological naturalist considers the above scenario a “perfectly reasonable possibility,” nor would anyone teach what is known to be untrue. Even if an anti-rationalist such as the author believes some scientific conclusions to be unwarranted it is purely ignorant demagoguery to suggest that some evil scientific cabal sanctions the dissemination of lies. How someone can produce such petty sniveling without being overcome at some point by shame, or even logic, is beyond me.

The real truth can only be taught in a new subject called meta-science lessons and it is a perfectly reasonable possibility in the future for the syllabus in these lessons to contradict the science syllabus and for the meta-science lessons to be teaching the truth and the science lessons to be teaching what is known to be wrong.

He continues to toss this word salad - if only he could keep it in the bowl. Of course what he’s suggesting is utterly unnecessary as we already have humanities and philosophy classes. Slapping a “Meta-science” label on warmed over religion and calling it a new kind of class would fool only those already singing in the choir.

At the end of the post, the UD guy who found it instructive offers this comment,

MN has been a very productive, beneficial methodology for science. It has led to a great deal of knowledge about nature, but the presumption that every natural phenomenon can always be reduced to unintelligent natural processes is not grounded in empirical science. Such an assertion can only be made from a position of faith.

And that faith has several names, including metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism and others. But that approach is clearly not equivalent with the operational methodology of science. Thus continues the ID movement’s tradition of conflating metaphysical naturalism with methodological naturalism despite having the distinction drawn for them time after time.

Time for ID proponents to get off this horse and put it out to pasture. It's just getting embarrassing.

New article up on eSkeptic

2006-03-10T23:15:00.000-08:00

eSkeptic, the online version of Skeptic magazine has up an article of mine evaluating another aspect of "Intelligent design's" use of science as epistemological cover. It's called Can Intelligent Design be considered scientific in the same way SETI is? and will be linked to from several places here.

Check it out along with the other great resources there.

Biology as a Rorschach blot

2006-03-06T10:44:00.000-08:00

One of the most odious, but important, tasks facing critics of creationism is the need to clarify the distortions of both scientific, and personal, observations of biologists put forth by creationists. It happens with regularity that provisional statements are interpreted as evidential, and ideological speculations are repeated as representative of scientific consensus.

Of course this all depends on convenience to the creationist argument. And ID creationists are no better than their less slick brethren on this score.

At Telic Thoughts, one of the contributors – “MikeGene” – has seen fit to interpret a recent Geerat Vermeij paper as supporting the notion of front-loading of evolutionary information (Michael Behe has been a proponent of this view, which appears to require an intelligent, um…loader?).

The entirety of the post follows,

Krauze first brought Geerat Vermeij’s paper to our attention. There is a nice summary found here. The best excerpt from the article?

“Most of the unique innovations — with the exception of human language — are ancient, more than half a billion years old.” (GV)

Now, now, I’ll bet its older than that. ;)

The plausibility of front-loading evolution continues to grow.

Of course there’s nothing in the article that would support the idea of the front-loading of information for evolutionary development, anymore than it bolsters the plausibility of an absent-minded maker accidentally knocking over a bowl of primordial soup and saying – “Okay, I’ll go with that.” It requires an a priori commitment to a particular metaphysical mindset to take such an extrapolation from what Vermeij is saying.

Nor is what Vermeij suggesting particularly earth-shaking. Though he apparently differs from Gould on the idea that if the tape of life were replayed the resultant iteration would be vastly different (with intelligence not necessarily even appearing), we should note that the difference is one of scale, not kind, contrary to the implications in the article. Though Gould’s stochastic argument was surely intended to shock our complacent assumption of inevitability...

“'We are an improbable and fragile entity,” […] “We are a thing, an item of history, not an embodiment of general principles,” […] “Homo sapiens is an entity, not a tendency.” (S.J. Gould, Wonderful Life)

...he never argued that during the replay natural selection might not hit upon similar adaptive solutions to environmental demands. This is the point made by Vermeij. True, he does appear to propose specifics,

“Vermeij argues that some innovations, such as photosynthesis, plant seeds, mineralized bones and even human language are just such good ideas that they would reappear, although at different times and in somewhat different forms.”

But the language is clearly provisional. And in the final analysis, if what he is suggesting is mildly provocative, it is recognizable as speculation, not evidence, “MikeGene’s” predilections notwithstanding.

"If we had an Earth-like planet, I think we'd see phenotypes and outcomes that parallel those on Earth."

There is no support here for the “plausibility of front-loading of evolution.” There is recognition here of natural law, the limits of biological possibilities, and environmental exigency.

It would be nice if proponents of creationism would have the integrity not to treat science as a gigantic inkblot, in which they are justified to perceive anything their presuppositions allow.