Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 07-26-2002, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Mike Gene and I used to be quite active on a private listserve some years back. I even arranged for him to give a keynote address at a private ID conference in the fall of 1997. When we were on that listserve together, I used to keep many of his posts because I thought that they were so insightful (unfortunately many were lost when a computer virus chewed up my email program). In all that time I do not recall ever taking sharp exception to him. But this time it's happened. My beef centers on Mike's comments on my exchange with Scott and Branch.

Scott and Branch write:
"Thus, school board members and administrators would be ill-advised to include ID in the public school science curriculum. If the scholarly aspect of ID becomes established�if ID truly becomes incorporated into the scientific mainstream�then, and only then, should school boards consider whether to add it to the curriculum."

I had in my response remarked that Scott and Branch's comment about my work and that of Michael Behe not having fared well in the scientific community was besides the point because it had not been refuted. In response to this Mike Gene remarked:

"S&B raise the most compelling reason to keep ID out of the schools. And it doesn't even have to be in the 'mainstream.' The simple fact that ID has not established itself in the scientific community is all we need to deny ID's entry into a high school curriculum. The counter-argument about ID not being refuted is weak. We don't teach kids things 'as long as they have not been refuted.' If we are to teach them science, we must teach them the facts, theories, and hypotheses used by scientists. And I'm afraid that the appeal to the few places where ID is discussed in the scientific literature (as mentioned by Dembski) don't counter S&B's claims. They point out that these ideas 'have not [been] applied' 'in researching scientific problems.' Yes, there was the mention of the JMB paper. But unless we can be specific and open about it, it hardly amounts to a reason to teach ID in schools. And yes, in a strange way, Thornhill and Ussery do apply the concept of IC as an impetus to outline possible mechanisms of evolutionary change. But they are simply trying to counter the 'IC means it can't evolve' claim. They were not using it as a true guide to research a biological phenomena (although I think it can be done, as explained on Brainstorms)."

To this Mike Gene then added:

"I'm in strong agreement with Scott and Branch on this point."

Indeed, we do not teach things in science simply because they have not been refuted. But I do not view my work on the design inference or Michael Behe's work on irreducible complexity of biochemical systems in the same category of "nonrefuted" as the claim that "gnomes and goblins have not refuted because no one has definitively shown that they do not exist." Our ideas are under intense discussion and we have many supporters in the scientific community (including experts in our respective disciplines), though certainly the majority is not with us at this point.

Now, what does all this say about the teaching of ID? Mike, along with S&B, takes the "high road" that ID must first be developed further as a scientific and scholarly program before it may be legitimately taught in public school science curricula. Before the dissolution of my ID think tank at Baylor, my sentiments were largely the same. But I've come to reject this view entirely. Here are the relevant considerations from my end:

(1) Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached.

(2) ID is logically speaking the only alternative to evolutionary biology. Either material mechanisms can do all the work in biological origins or some telic process is additionally required.

(3) Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.

My response to Scott and Branch was a puff piece -- a bit of rhetorical posturing to balance out their rhetorical posturing. The NCSE, of which they are a part, is best considered a group of paid advocates for the Darwinian establishment (and no, the same cannot be said for me on the ID side -- I'm not receiving any Discovery Institute funding, and when my contract at Baylor is up, I'll need to find another academic job).

It's all very convenient for Mike Gene to adopt a pseudonymous persona and discuss the appropriate time for ID to be introduced into the high school biology curriculum. In the neat and sanitized world of Internet discussions, this works just fine, and Mike and keep his coterie of hangers-on happy by taking the "high road." But come out of the shadows long enough to feel the brunt of the Darwinian establishment, and things look very different.

[[And yes, this is the real Bill Dembski, not an impersonator]]

--------------------
Bill Dembski

<a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000220</a>

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Clutch · 07-26-2002, 05:44 AM

Quote:

(1) Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached.

Hoo-ahh!!! Where do you even start with someone who's been led to water as many times as Dembski must have been, but still just hasn't drunk a drop of understanding? Evolutionary biology has been hugely unsuccessful! Of course! Please, could we have the vigorous and fecund Thomistic biology back again?

And then there's the boneheaded conflation of evolutionary theory with the origins of life -- a move that, from someone exposed to the distinction as often as Vacuous Bill, amounts to little less than a lie.

Quote:

(2) ID is logically speaking the only alternative to evolutionary biology. Either material mechanisms can do all the work in biological origins or some telic process is additionally required.

<Giggle, snort...> "logically speaking"? Ooo, stop it, you're killin' me! This is up there with "Lord, Liar, Lunatic". What about free-floating complexity-raising fields that drift randomly about? I mean, we'd need a well-defined notion of complexity to propose such a field... Oh, sorry, I forgot: it's Vacuous Bill who owes that definition.

Quote:

(3) Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age. The Darwinists undestand this. So do the ID proponents. There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program.

Ah, the crux of the matter. Like any religion, if you don't get smart kids programmed with ID-ology when they're young, you might not get them at all. Nice of Vacuous Bill to admit this. I was especially impressed by his acknowledgement that the brightest people recognize the soundness of evolutionary theory! We get Mach, Gould, Medawar... he gets Baugh, Morris and... er, himself.

It's an interesting argument: Yes, ID-ology is dismissed as rubbish by (to the nearest approximation) every scientist in the world; so fair play requires that we program some children to grow up into people who *will* endorse ID-ology. So we should teach it in school... not *in spite of* its being recognized as a mass of misrepresentations and gross fallacies, but *because* it's so recognized.

Welcome to the Orwellian world of American ID-ology!

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

scombrid · 07-26-2002, 05:47 AM

Quote:

(2) ID is logically speaking the only alternative to evolutionary biology. Either material mechanisms can do all the work in biological origins or some telic process is additionally required.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> False Dilemma <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid to add extra bangheads]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid ]</p>

RufusAtticus · 07-26-2002, 06:29 AM

Quote:

(1) Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly regardless what state of formation ID has reached.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Methinks Dembinski should stick to mathematics.

KC · 07-26-2002, 06:30 AM

Looks like Mike has been cast from the inner circle because he refuses to spout the new party line.

As anyone can see, Mike has adhered to the letter of the Wedge strategy, ie, believing that solid research is required first before any political action is taken. It is obvious to anyone who has followed the events in Ohio that the Wedge strategy as written has been abandoned in favor of a purely political campaign to cram ID into the public school's science curricula, regardless of its scientific merits.

Mike is being purged for not supporting the true motives behind the movement. If anyone had any doubts about ID as modern Lysenkoism, those doubts should be gone now.

Cheers,

KC

pangloss · 07-26-2002, 06:40 AM

Our ideas are under intense discussion and we have many supporters in the scientific community (including experts in our respective disciplines), though certainly the majority is not with us at this point.

[b] Are these the same 'scientists' that Dembski refers to on the dust jacket of his book? A couple of theologians and a few ID Fellows?

Come on - thats like saying Bush is a great president because George senior said so!

Albion · 07-26-2002, 12:56 PM

Well, maybe an assertion (like the one in that thread a couple of weeks ago) that all these great IDers are out there doing ID-related research and getting published in mainstream journals BUT WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEIR RESEARCH IS OR THEY'LL BE PERSECUTED FOR THEIR FAITH - UM, THEIR SCIENCE counts as the missing link in the Wedge probramme. Yes, we've done all that stuff but we can't give details. Impressive.

Grumpy · 07-26-2002, 01:03 PM

Quote:

...by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program

In other words, "We can't prove ID yet, so we'll get it into schools first, and *then* we'll have loads of ID theorists who can hash out the details for us."

As a possible tangent, I've been thinking about what ID would mean for a broader school curriculum. I'm about halfway through Guns, Germs and Steel, and so far it seems that the entire sweep of human history follows from the initial conditions of plant & animal evolution in various locales. Does this mean human civilization was Intelligently Designed? Do we teach school kids that the early peoples of the Fertile Crescent were specially blessed, because God (or whoever) provided them with domesticable wheat and cattle species?

For that matter, the geography that led to the evolution of those wild species must have been intelligently designed, as well as the geology of the soils & mineral wealth of those incipient civilizations.

Can somebody tell me how far ID is supposed to go? Beyond flagella, blot clotting, and metabolic reactions, what else is supposedly proof of an intelligent "jump-start" to evolution? Or do I have to read their flippin' books?

Principia · 07-30-2002, 06:38 AM

Dembski loved his reply to MG so much that he put it on his <a href="http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.07.Mike_Gene.htm" target="_blank">website</a>, along with an addendum from Wells:

Quote:

Bill Dembski wrote:

>

> Evolutionary biology has been so hugely unsuccessful as a scientific
> theory in accounting for the origin of life and the emergence of
> biological complexity that it does not deserve a monopoly
> regardless what state of formation ID has reached.
>

I agree.

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. This prediction has never been even remotely supported by experiments, no matter how sophisticated. If I put a living cell into an ideal buffer solution in a clean test tube and poke a hole in it, its contents will leak out, and I will have in hand ALL the complex molecules and structures necessary to make a living cell; but every biologist knows I won't be able to do it. Even with all of modern technology at my disposal, I can't put humpty-dumpty back together again. Why any rational person thinks such complex molecules could originate spontaneously and then assemble themselves into a living cell is beyond me.

I could list other examples: At the level of the animal phyla, the more we learn about the fossil record the worse it is for Darwin's theory; the more we learn about genetics the worse it is for neo-Darwinism's theory that changes in gene frequencies lead to evolutionary changes in anatomy (except perhaps the LOSS of morphological features); and the more we learn about complex intracellular structures the more they look like things we KNOW to be designed.

Of course Darwin's theory works within species (for example, in the acquisition of bacterial antibiotic resistance, or minor and reversible changes in finch beaks). Above the species level, however, Darwin's theory has met with so little success that if it had been a theory in physics or chemistry it would have been discarded long ago.

I have read in several textbooks that "creation science" (i.e. young-earth creationism, or YEC) has been empirically refuted, so it should not be taught in science classes. One does not need to take a position on the validity of YEC to see that this same criterion, when applied to the larger claims of Darwinian evolution, would also justify its exclusion from the science classroom -- if it were not for the fact that it remains the best naturalistic account. The persistence of Darwinism is not due to its success as empirical science, but (as Phillip Johnson has often said) its usefulness as applied naturalistic philosophy.

Nevertheless, ID proponents are not arguing that the larger (and largely falsified) claims of Darwinian evolution should be dropped from the curriculum. 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.

And indeed it is -- but not for the reasons Darwinists trumpet. The future of the scientific enterprise is at stake because (in biology, at least) it is currently held hostage by a relatively small number of dogmatists. Darwinists achieved their monopoly over biological science by systematically distorting the evidence and by ruthlessly expelling dissidents (why else would Mike B. Gene feel the need to write under a pseudonym?). Not surprisingly, this biological equivalent of the dictatorship of the proletariat wants to exclude from the curriculum ALL challenges to its power.

I say: Keep up the pressure on them, by all truthful and ethical means necessary. At stake is not just the future of science, but (as Ben Wiker's new book, Moral Darwinism clearly shows) the future of our civilization.

Jonathan Wells

Discovery Institute

hezekiah jones · 07-30-2002, 06:55 AM

Nice post Clutch. "Grape Ape" also wrote an excellent response to Dembski's petulant drivel at ARN.

I can't fucking believe these people. They implicitly acknowledge that their theology cum philosophy is entirely bereft of scientific merit, yet baldly forge ahead with their indoctrination campaign into the public schools.

I understand that at a recent ID conference yet another luminary (an attorney, not a scientist, as usual) claimed that should the DI's Ohio campaign founder the IDers will seek legislative relief and, failing that, an appeal to the federal courts.

I have read some philosophy of science but I've never come across the argument that science is defined by legislation and/or the judiciary, especially as an alternative to producing nothing of substance. This is just pathetic, and these people are vile and they lie and they cheat. Oh, and they're "Christians."

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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2002, 06:30 AM	#5
KC Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Narcisco, RRR Posts: 527	Looks like Mike has been cast from the inner circle because he refuses to spout the new party line. As anyone can see, Mike has adhered to the letter of the Wedge strategy, ie, believing that solid research is required first before any political action is taken. It is obvious to anyone who has followed the events in Ohio that the Wedge strategy as written has been abandoned in favor of a purely political campaign to cram ID into the public school's science curricula, regardless of its scientific merits. Mike is being purged for not supporting the true motives behind the movement. If anyone had any doubts about ID as modern Lysenkoism, those doubts should be gone now. Cheers, KC

07-26-2002, 06:40 AM	#6
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	Our ideas are under intense discussion and we have many supporters in the scientific community (including experts in our respective disciplines), though certainly the majority is not with us at this point. [b] Are these the same 'scientists' that Dembski refers to on the dust jacket of his book? A couple of theologians and a few ID Fellows? Come on - thats like saying Bush is a great president because George senior said so!

07-26-2002, 12:56 PM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Well, maybe an assertion (like the one in that thread a couple of weeks ago) that all these great IDers are out there doing ID-related research and getting published in mainstream journals BUT WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE OR WHAT THEIR RESEARCH IS OR THEY'LL BE PERSECUTED FOR THEIR FAITH - UM, THEIR SCIENCE counts as the missing link in the Wedge probramme. Yes, we've done all that stuff but we can't give details. Impressive.

07-30-2002, 06:55 AM	#10
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Nice post Clutch. "Grape Ape" also wrote an excellent response to Dembski's petulant drivel at ARN. I can't fucking believe these people. They implicitly acknowledge that their theology cum philosophy is entirely bereft of scientific merit, yet baldly forge ahead with their indoctrination campaign into the public schools. I understand that at a recent ID conference yet another luminary (an attorney, not a scientist, as usual) claimed that should the DI's Ohio campaign founder the IDers will seek legislative relief and, failing that, an appeal to the federal courts. I have read some philosophy of science but I've never come across the argument that science is defined by legislation and/or the judiciary, especially as an alternative to producing nothing of substance. This is just pathetic, and these people are vile and they lie and they cheat. Oh, and they're "Christians." [ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiah jones ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.