Richiyaado

I've been following the fallout produced by Dembski's 'open letter' to Mike Gene both here and at ARN and was initially confused by this paragraph:

I wasn't sure if by "coterie of hangers-on," Dembski meant other IDists who applaud Mike's efforts at 'research', or scientists who single Mike out as being one of the few IDists who showed any sign of approaching ID scientifically.

Now I suspect what's really going on is that Dembski (and Wells) are drawing a line in the sand by saying to Mike (or anyone in the ID camp who lauds his efforts), "You're either with us or against us." Since Mike's ID 'hypotheses' amounts to some sort of intelligently-designed 'front-loading' followed by a history of life explicable by Darwinian evolution, he is at odds with the growing majority of high-profle ID proponents whose position (virtually identical with other creationists) is that natural processes are only capable of producing limited variations within species or 'kinds'.

For Dembski and Wells, Darwinism is a failed paradigm and must be entirely overthrown to make room for the new 'theistic science'. So Mike Gene either needs to get with the program or be purged.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>

tgamble

[quote]Originally posted by Scientiae:
<strong>In fact, the ONLY reason Darwinian evolution enjoys its present status is that it can claim to be the best naturalistic theory of life's origin and biological complexity. (Indeed, this may be the only completely truthful claim Darwinism makes). Any reasonably objective evaluation of the evidence, however, quickly reveals that at most levels Darwinian theory is not just unsupported -- it has been falsified.

For example, modern Darwinists predict that a living cell can arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals.
[QUOTE]

Who? I'd love to know the names of these alleged "darwinists". Is that even a word?

Has it ever been tried?

Poor lad is so deluded it's pathetic.

That's what's being done. But as shown in reviews of Well's books (and others), Id propnents are as dishonest as YECs.

Kewl. Anyone got a reasonable alternative? No?

What an asshole!

MrDarwin

I assume he is talking about public schools here? Why, then, don't they take their arguments to the private schools? In particular, why don't they get religious schools to teach I.D.? I imagine they would embrace it. Don't such schools get bright students, and turn out well-educated graduates?

It's like their complaints about not getting published because of anti-I.D. editorial bias. It apparently hasn't occurred to them to start publishing their own damn journals, just to get all of their suppressed research out there and accessible.

Principia

My guess is that Dembski is referring to the other IDists on ARN. It has become increasingly clear that MG alone gives intellectual credence to the other IDists there. How he managed that illusion is still presently a little beyond my grasp of ARN history, since MG is infamous for switching topics whenever they get dangerously close to anything of substance about ID hypotheses. But, the posts in the same thread by Jazzraptor, Jack, et al. all point to the fact that they hold MG as some kind of false idol to the chagrin of Dembski and co. Why MG, in his neverending quest for intellectual honesty, continues to associate himself with the ID movement in any fashion is besides me. It seems like the IDi[s]ts of Dembski/Wells ilk are his worst enemies, not his critics. The irony is that the political activities of ID and the IDi[s]ts' need to antagonize the scientific/academic establishment are the real reasons why MG needs a pseudonym.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

theyeti

Most private religious schools are Catholic, which teach evolution and are unlikely to be swayed by a movement which is overwhemlingly led by Protestant fundamentalists. Ironically, the fact that they're religious is why they won't teach a theory whose support comes mostly from a sectarian religious view point. I'm pretty sure that most private Christian schools that expouse fundamentalism are already teaching some vareity of YEC. Remember, ID is a clever marketing ploy to get creationism into public, secular schools.

Actually, Dembski did start PCID, which is supposed to be the ID journal for his little club. It was supposed to be published quartery, but the most recent issue didn't appear due to lack of submissions.

theyeti

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

Richiyaado

In light of Dembki's post at ARN and Well's addendum, I believe it may now be possible to arrive at a reasonable reconstruction of events which may account for abandoning any need for further actual research before establishing ID as the dominant scientific paradigm.

We begin with the Wedge document, which outlines the overarching strategy for establishing ID. The Wedge boils down to three phases:

Phase I: Research

Phase II: Opinion-Making

Phase III: Cultural Renewal

Execution of the three phases has and is taking place as follows:

Phase I: Put a cell in a test tube and poke a hole in it. Observe whether or not the resulting effluence self-organizes into new, self-replicating biochemical structures. If not, conclude that both abiogenesis and evolution are impossible. Research complete—end of Phase I.

Phase II: Based upon the conclusion reached by Phase I, publish an endless stream of books and articles setting forth the inescapable inference of intelligent design. Ignore or disregard any criticism from the scientific community and simply keep repeating the claim. When speaking before general audiences, school boards and governing bodies, emphasize that there is no religiously-motivated component to ID. This is unnecessary when speaking to ID-friendly religious groups, however. Phase II continues unabated.

Phase III: Assert that no further research is necessary before introducing ID into science curricula nationwide. Expose and purge those whose ID heterodoxy admits even the faintest whiff of Darwinism. Engage the emerging media-driven mobocracy and relentlessly work the political process to legislate ID in and Darwinism out. Phase III is just getting started.

Continue phases II and III for another 10 years and... ID rules!

(My guess is that Jonathan Wells personally conducted Phase I research in the Discovery Institute's break room. I'd think the experiment could have easily been completed inside half an hour.)

hezekiah jones

Bummer.

Speaking of ISCID the following comment was made by the moderator in the act of quickly closing a thread on the recent SciAm creationist piece:

They better take an interest real quick if they're going to defend their horeseshit in court.

Albion

Jonathan Wells isn't coming close to making sense (so what else is new...). He's saying that Darwinian evolution doesn't work on a scientific level and he proposes "Instead, ID proponents are merely arguing (1) that the evidence be presented honestly, so students can use their perfectly good minds to decide whether the theory works or not; and (2) that Darwinian theory (like every other scientific theory) be required to compete evidentially with a reasonable alternative, even if that alternative happens NOT to be driven by naturalistic philosophy. Darwinists resist both these options as though the whole scientific enterprise were at stake."

Now I may be missing something, but what he's proposing isn't an alternative to Darwinian evolution because he isn't remotely interested in going though all the tons and tons of evidence for evolution and applying his alternative instead. He's just latching onto a handy area where there hasn't been a lot of research and demanding that God be let in. I assume he's quite happy for Darwinian evolution to be used to explain all the other stuff he can't be bothered to look into.

Darwinists resist both these options as though the whole scientific enterprise were at stake?????? Well, maybe that's because it is. Once you let schoolkids decide what's correct and what isn't on the basis of presentations of "both sides," you've turned science from an enterprise based on evidence to one based on PR. And once you allow explanations that aren't driven by naturalistic philosophy, you've redefied science at the most fundamental level. I'd call that putting the whole scientific enterprise at stake.

Albion

Oh, yes, and he also said this: "Nevertheless, ID proponents are not arguing that the larger (and largely falsified) claims of Darwinian evolution should be dropped from the curriculum."

Well, why not? If they're largely falsified, why teach them in schools? I thought the whole point was not to teach tings that are known to be false. That's what he was getting his knickers in such a twist about in his book. He's simply being lazy. He doesn't want to replace Darwiniian evolution, whether it's false or not, with an alternative scientific explanation because that would require real work. He just wants to graft religion onto science so that science stops being secular. You'd think he could be a bit more subtle about it.

Richiyaado

Albion wrote:

I might quibble with your first sentence and say something like "...aren't driven by the inherent limitations of naturalist methodology," but otherwise agree. Science would be both redefi[n]ed and rede[i]fied.

And once the new 'theistic science' is established, I'd guess all of science (not merely biology), would be subject to significant revision. Oh brave new paradigm!

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Richiyaado ]</p>