Wow, this article is reaches a new level of irritating-ness.
[sarcasm] tags will not be used, I trust it shall be obvious.
Quote:
STATEMENT BY WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI ON THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Edward Kennedy -- Expert on Science?
By William A. Dembski
|
by William A. Dembski, noted scientist.
Quote:
In today's Washington Times
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020321-76780268.htm#2), Sen. Edward Kennedy takes exception to Sen. Rick Santorum's March 14
Commentary piece, "Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools" (http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020314-50858765).
Santorum, who supports intelligent design, argues that Ohio public schools should be open to teaching it. Kennedy, who has publicly supported the teaching of alternate scientific theories when there is diversity of opinion among scientists, nevertheless rejects Santorum's
argument.
|
The "diversity" of scientific opinion regarding this issue is highly limited, as is shown by the DI's pitiful attempts to trump it up by getting "scientists" -- be they non-biologists, YECs, or whatnot -- to sign vaguely-worded statements.
Quote:
Yes, alternate scientific theories should be taught. But, as Kennedy puts it, "intelligent design is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation's public school science classes."
Kennedy is no scientist or philosopher of science, so presumably he has spoken to the experts, who assure him that intelligent design is
not science. Indeed, Kennedy himself offers no argument for why intelligent design fails to be a scientific theory.
|
He was, of course, primarily responding to Santorum's mischaracterization of him...what does Dembski want, a long philosophical treatise in the newspaper? I'm game, but the papers usually aren't.
Quote:
So, is that how the public debate over intelligent design's role in public school sciences classes will end? Experts on one side will say that it is a genuine science and experts on the other will say it isn't? And
politicians will then take their cues from their preferred experts?
|
Hopefully, people will realize that all of the real experts are on one side, that of evolution, and that those on the ID side are pretenders.
Quote:
|
Actually, it is possible for the average woman or man on the street to see that intelligent design is a genuine scientific alternative to evolutionary biology.
|
And these of course are the people whom the DI is trying to convince, rather than the scientists who *should* be their target.
Quote:
|
Evolutionary biology, as it is currently taught in public school science classes, teaches that all of biological complexity is the result of material mechanisms.
|
Hmm, just like the weather is the result of material mechanisms. Those evil dogmatic meteorologists.
Quote:
These include the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation, but now
include many other mechanisms (symbiosis, gene transfer, genetic drift, the action or regulator genes in development, self-organizational processes, etc.). The point is that all these
mechanisms are just that: they are mechanisms -- mindless material processes that do what they do irrespective of intelligence.
|
In the same sense as the weather, yep. Why aren't you writing this article about meteorology, Dr. Dembski?
Quote:
|
The only alternative to mechanism is intelligence.
|
Really? So, where does Lamarkism fit?
Quote:
|
As a consequence, the only alternative to evolutionary biology is intelligent design.
|
What's that term, argumentatim ad "assume that my position is the only alternative to the dominant one"?
Quote:
Intelligent design studies the effects of intelligence in the world.
Many special sciences already fall under intelligent design, including archeology, cryptography, forensics, and SETI (the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence).
|
SETI is of course debatable, having had no successes as of yet. And for all of the others, we of course have a well-known designer that does things in certain somewhat predictable ways.
A completely unknown, completely undescribed "designer" is indistinguishable from a supernatural designer, and is an equally useless explanatory resource.
Quote:
|
Intelligent design is thus already part of science. Moreover, it employs well-defined methods for detecting intelligence. These methods together with their application constitute the theory of intelligent design.
|
Oh wait, you mean your argument that "improbable things are improbable"? That's a great argument, why doesn't Dembski just say that straight out, it's the essence of his "theory."
Quote:
The question, therefore, is not whether intelligent design constitutes a genuine scientific theory but whether, as a scientific theory, it properly applies to biology. Indeed, the only place where intelligent design is controversial is biology (even physicists are now
comfortable talking about the design of the universe).
|
This is highly debatable. Some do talk about it, but it is definitely controversial.
(plus, how much of this talk is in journal research articles? Say, percent-wise. Physicists?)
There was a good NPR report on physics and the anthropic principle awhile ago, anyone know of a link, I can't find it...the Main Point was how *un*comfortable scientists were with basically using the anthropic principle as the explanation for the origin of the universe.
Quote:
Evolutionary biologists claim to have demonstrated that design is superfluous for
understanding biological complexity. But note: even such a claim demonstrates the genuine scientific status of intelligent design, for
it implies that the question whether design is superfluous in biology is a legitimate scientific question and one whose outcome can be decided by scientific investigation.
|
Ergo, Young-Earth Creationism is scientific also, eh?
Quote:
|
In science no outcome is a foregone conclusion.
|
True. However, once a conclusion is made it takes more than some carping in newspaper articles, etc. to change the scientists' minds. UFOology and touch therapy deserves discussion in classrooms also according to Dembski's argument.
Quote:
The mark of a pseudoscience is not that it is false but, in the words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that it is "not even false." In other
words, with a pseudoscience there's no way to decide whether it is true or false.
|
This statement is false. First, Pauli is being mis-cited (see Action's take below), and second, something is also pseudoscience if:
1) it has been shown to be false, unsupported, and/or vacuous, and:
2) it is still strongly endorsed and promoted, for political reasons, as if it were good science.
Quote:
|
Evolutionary biologists argue that material mechanisms suffice to account for biological complexity. Intelligent design theorists argue that material mechanisms are inadequate to account for biological complexity and that furthermore intelligence is required.
|
How can there be a "furthermore" argument if the previous Dembski statement above, that ID is the only other option, is true?
Quote:
|
Both sides are trying to determine the truth of some definite matter of fact -- whether life is the result of mindless material mechanisms or whether it demonstrably points to a designing intelligence.
|
"mindless material mechanisms" -- Is the weather mindless, or not? Yes or no? ***
All that science really says is that evolution appears to procede by natural causes, just like geology, meteorology, climatology, etc.*** If you're going to try and paint evolutionary biology (rather than particular writers like Dawkins) as inherantly atheist, then you're going to have to paint the lot.
Quote:
|
This is a genuine scientific debate, and one scientists have taken up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
|
...uh, like the *one* article Dembski mentioned in "No Free Lunch", namely Ussery and Thornhill's *refutation* of Behe in
The Journal of Theoretical Biology (Dembski didn't bother to mention that it was a refutation, of course).
Being refuted in the primary literature is not exactly a ringing argument for being included in public school discussions.
Quote:
|
Does that mean intelligent design should be taught in public school science classrooms? Intelligent design is a young theory
|
translation: vague hypothesis
Quote:
and one that
requires considerable development. Whether it has progressed far enough to effectively enter the biology curriculum of public schools is best left to the discretion of school boards and biology teachers.
|
...So why does the Discovery Institute feels the need to play *large numbers of political games* to influence the state standards board in Ohio? Why not just let things take their natural course, *
just like all other ideas in science have to?*
Everyone check out Ken Miller's powerpoint show here:
<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/events/cleveland.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/events/cleveland.html</a>
...well, it's not there but it's somewhere. He has a great graphic showing how ID is trying to shortcut the normal process from hypothesis to textbooks.
Quote:
|
But whether it may legitimately be raised as a topic for discussion in public school science classes and whether the sufficiency of material mechanisms to generate biological complexity may legitimately be debated should never have been in question.
|
Yeah, ID can be raised just like UFOs, homeopathy, and 800 other wannabe scientific ideas can be raised. It deserves an equivalent amount of attention in science class.
Quote:
To dismiss intelligent design as "not a genuine scientific theory" is to insulate evolutionary biology from criticism and turn it into a
monopoly.
|
Puh-lease. *Evolutionary biologists* criticize "evolutionary biology" all of the time, just like physicists criticize "physics", etc. This is a large part of what science is, a group of well-informed experts critiquing each other's ideas.
Quote:
|
Sen. Kennedy, who has been so effective at unmasking monopolies in the business world, seems not to realize that they can be just as virulent and oppressive in the scientific world. The problem with intelligent design is not that it fails as a science.
|
Actually, that is the problem. Note Dembski's several attempts to presume a favorable position for ID and thereby place the debate several steps closer to the real science end of the continuum.
Quote:
|
The problem is that evolutionary biology holds a monopoly that it is reluctant to relinquish. All monopolies are bad, for they render inviolable things that were never meant to be inviolable, and in so doing coerce submission and undermine freedom.
|
Just like the HIV equals AIDS scientists hold a monopoly that they is reluctant to relinquish. Is this also "bad"? -- it must be if "all monopolies are bad". Is this monopoly "virulent and oppressive"?
Or rather, is it the AIDS-denial movement that is virulent and oppressive? Ask the people in South Africa who aren't getting the drugs they need. Then ask ID-movement-founder, and noted AIDS denier, Phil Johnson what he thinks about this.
Quote:
|
The controversy in Ohio regarding intelligent design is not about whether intelligent design is science. It is about whether evolutionary biology's monopoly in science education can be overcome and freedom made to prevail.
|
The true mark of pseudoscience: portraying the dominant opposition as oppressive and anti-freedom, rather than as having honest objections which need to be dealt with in detail.
Nick
PS: George Action's take on t.o. is good also:
Quote:
> March 21, 2002: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> STATEMENT BY WILLIAM A. DEMBSKI ON THE >SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF
> INTELLIGENT DESIGN
>
> Edward Kennedy -- Expert on Science?
> By William A. Dembski
>
> In today's Washington Times
> (http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020321-76780268.htm#2), Sen.
> Edward Kennedy takes exception to Sen. Rick Santorum's March 14
> Commentary piece, "Illiberal Education in Ohio Schools"
> (http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=20020314-50858765).
> Santorum, who supports intelligent design, argues that Ohio public
> schools should be open to teaching it. Kennedy, who has publicly
> supported the teaching of alternate scientific theories when there is
> diversity of opinion among scientists, nevertheless rejects Santorum's
> argument. Yes, alternate scientific theories should be taught. But, as
> Kennedy puts it, "intelligent design is not a genuine scientific
> theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation's
> public school science classes."
The fact that Dembski is conducting science by press release speaks for itself.
> Kennedy is no scientist or philosopher of science, so presumably he
> has spoken to the experts, who assure him that intelligent design is
> not science. Indeed, Kennedy himself offers no argument for why
> intelligent design fails to be a scientific theory. So, is that how
> the public debate over intelligent design's role in public school
> sciences classes will end? Experts on one side will say that it is a
> genuine science and experts on the other will say it isn't? And
> politicians will then take their cues from their preferred experts?
Duh. Legislators can't be experts on every issue brought before before them. They rely on experts. What's wrong with that?
The burden isn't on Kennedy to show that "intelligent design" is worthless.
> Actually, it is possible for the average woman or man on the street to
> see that intelligent design is a genuine scientific alternative to
> evolutionary biology.
Standard Wedge Project strategy of bypassing scientista and appealing to laymen.
>Evolutionary biology, as it is currently taught
> in public school science classes, teaches that all of biological
> complexity is the result of material mechanisms. These include the
> Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random variation, but now
> include many other mechanisms (symbiosis, gene transfer, genetic
> drift, the action or regulator genes in development,
> self-organizational processes, etc.). The point is that all these
> mechanisms are just that: they are mechanisms -- mindless material
> processes that do what they do irrespective of intelligence.
>
> The only alternative to mechanism is intelligence. As a consequence,
> the only alternative to evolutionary biology is intelligent design.
> Intelligent design studies the effects of intelligence in the world.
> Many special sciences already fall under intelligent design, including
> archeology, cryptography, forensics, and SETI (the Search for
> Extraterrestrial Intelligence).
This is an appempt to appropriate scientific work after the fact. Dembski's probability arguments have made zero contribution to any of these fields.
>Intelligent design is thus already
> part of science. Moreover, it employs well-defined methods for
> detecting intelligence. These methods together with their application
> constitute the theory of intelligent design.
"These methods" all use a priori knowledge about the putative designer. There are obvious differences in examining a physical
artifact for evidence of human fabrication and looking at organisms for evidence of an omniscient God.
> The question, therefore, is not whether intelligent design constitutes
> a genuine scientific theory but whether, as a scientific theory, it
> properly applies to biology.
It's a stale probability argument, similar to the Lecompte du Nouy calculation for a protein.
>Indeed, the only place where intelligent
> design is controversial is biology (even physicists are now
> comfortable talking about the design of the universe).
This is at best misleading. There are some speculations about the "fine-tuning" of physical constants. But the claim that this proves the existence of God is indeed controversial.
If "intelligent design" isn't controversial in any other area, why not introduce it into all the other science classes until we have a better consensus about biology.
> Evolutionary
> biologists claim to have demonstrated that design is superfluous for
> understanding biological complexity. But note: even such a claim
> demonstrates the genuine scientific status of intelligent design, for
> it implies that the question whether design is superfluous in biology
> is a legitimate scientific question and one whose outcome can be
> decided by scientific investigation. In science no outcome is a
> foregone conclusion.
This isn't an honest statement of the situation. People in every branch of science think there's presently no scientific evidence for
supernatural events. They are superfluous for understanding currently available evidence. No one claims to have made a positive demonstration that this will always be the case. No one has
drawn a "foregone conclusion".
> The mark of a pseudoscience is not that it is false but, in the words
> of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that it is "not even false."
Not an accurate citation of Pauli. He wasn't trying to define pseudoscience. He was talkng about a bad physics paper.
> In other
> words, with a pseudoscience there's no way to decide whether it is
> true or false.
Not the common usage of the term. Many people would call homeopathy or Velikovsky's (sp?) theories pseudoscience, but there is good
experimental demonstration that they're false. People cling to the theories for irrational reasons.
>Evolutionary biologists argue that material mechanisms
> suffice to account for biological complexity. Intelligent design
> theorists argue that material mechanisms are inadequate to account for
> biological complexity and that furthermore intelligence is required.
> Both sides are trying to determine the truth of some definite matter
> of fact -- whether life is the result of mindless material mechanisms
> or whether it demonstrably points to a designing intelligence. This is
> a genuine scientific debate, and one scientists have taken up in the
> peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Again, misleading. Behe has had a letter to the editor in Science, which technically counts. But if "intelligent design" were published in the normal scientific way, there'd be serious
review article in a good journal that people could use as a basis for discussion. The closest we have is collections of talks at subsidized conferences.
> Does that mean intelligent design should be taught in public school
> science classrooms? Intelligent design is a young theory and one that
> requires considerable development.
Translation: it has no evidence, makes no predictions, and is totally sterile in suggesting new experimental approaches.
>Whether it has progressed far
> enough to effectively enter the biology curriculum of public schools
> is best left to the discretion of school boards and biology teachers.
The normal course of acceptance of a new scientific idea is that it gains adherents in universities and research institutes, has
publications in speciality journals, then general journals like Science and Nature, and only then becomes a part of introductory courses, first at the undergraduate level, then secondary schools.
> But whether it may legitimately be raised as a topic for discussion in > public school science classes and whether the sufficiency of material
> mechanisms to generate biological complexity may legitimately be > debated should never have been in question.
If phlogiston were raised as a "topic for discussion" it seems only correct that evidence refuting the theory be presented. The
discussion would be an exercise in how theories are tested and rejected. There is no more evidence for "intelligent design" than
for phlogiston. But an honest discussion is impossible in the setting of many public schools in the US, and the Wedge people know
this. The last thing they want is critical discussion, else they'd be trying to put on seminars at Harvard, MIT, the NIH, etc.
> To dismiss intelligent design as "not a genuine scientific theory" is
> to insulate evolutionary biology from criticism and turn it into a
> monopoly. Sen. Kennedy, who has been so effective at unmasking
> monopolies in the business world, seems not to realize that they can
> be just as virulent and oppressive in the scientific world. The
> problem with intelligent design is not that it fails as a science. The
> problem is that evolutionary biology holds a monopoly that it is
> reluctant to relinquish. All monopolies are bad, for they render
> inviolable things that were never meant to be inviolable, and in so
> doing coerce submission and undermine freedom. The controversy in Ohio
> regarding intelligent design is not about whether intelligent design
> is science. It is about whether evolutionary biology's monopoly in
> science education can be overcome and freedom made to prevail.
This is fairly high on the irony meter, since the aims of the neocons and Wedge Project people are to suppress freedom of thought. The rhetoric of victimology doesn't quite fit. The man been keeping ID down? I don't think so.
--George Acton
|
03-25-2002, 07:57 PM
The leaders of the ID movement are a bunch of god-damned liars...
