Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bluefugue · 12-05-2002, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Bottom line: Darwinism has a burden of proof that intelligent design does not have.

Of course Darwinism has a burden of proof. Doy. But Intelligent Design doesn't have a burden of proof? How about, er, providing independent evidence that a designer actually exists?

Principia · 12-05-2002, 10:38 AM

bluefugue,

Note how carefully Dembski phrases the issue:

Quote:

As a theory of creative innovation, its burden is to show where creative innovations first emerge and then trace their causal antecedents and consequents.

Now, couple this with what he said from a couple of paragraphs earlier:

Quote:

In the theory of intelligent design, causal specificity comes up in the antecedent circumstances that condition (but do not determine, explain, or account for) creative innovation. [...] No set of antecedent circumstances can account for a creative innovation.

And voila, this is the essence of what Dembski sees for ID's burden of proof. In other words, nada.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

The Lone Ranger · 12-05-2002, 02:26 PM

[IDist]
Those mean old Darwinists expect us to provide evidence for our claims! It's not fair! They're just being close-minded!!!
[/IDist]

Cheers,

Michael

Principia · 12-06-2002, 05:47 AM

An <a href="http://www.trueintelligence.org/interviewluskin.htm" target="_blank">interview</a> of the co-founder/co-member of a national Christian campus apologetics group known as IDEA. Here are the excerpts:

Quote:

I do disagree. Unfortunately this misconception about intelligent design is quite common. I think the phrase "intelligent design creationism" has become something of a catch-phrase for opponents of intelligent design--it was first widely promoted through an article that appeared in the prestigious journal Science.

I think some people promote this stereotype that intelligent design is "creationism" because they know the word "creationism" has strong negative connotations in our culture. "Creationism" has been the subject of public ridicule both in the secular academic community and in the public media since the Scopes Trial in 1925. As one who spent 4 years in academia involved with scientific research, I can testify that this fact is absolutely true--there can be a lot of stigma with attached to being a "creationist." Therefore, identifying intelligent design with creationism is a good strategy if you are waging a P.R. war against intelligent design: it causes the public, particularly academics, to mistrust it.

You have only yourself to blame... Hell, you are doing a great job building negative connotations of 'design' or 'design theory,' as it is without your Creationists buddies.

Quote:

One prominent Darwinist said that creationism is "[generally] the idea that a supernatural entity(s) created the universe and humankind." The U.S. Supreme Court legally held that creationism is a group of statements which say, among other things, that the earth and life was created from nothing within the past few thousand years. Yet intelligent design theory is saying neither of these two things.
There's a website at <a href="http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm</a> that says it perfectly [snip].

Ah, the trusty ol' ARN FAQ. Of course, Luskin helps build the consistent record of NeoCreationists siting that one definition and then conveniently leaving out <a href="http://www.arn.org/glossary.htm" target="_blank">the other</a>:

Quote:

By contrast, Design Theory is the claim that science may consider a third kind of explanation--intelligent agency --and that, in fact, in certain cases evidence for intelligent design can and has been empirically detected. ...
Design Theories

Theistic Evolution(2): God set the initial conditions of the universe and designed natural laws so that their ordinary operation has resulted in the intended outcome. One might call this "frontloaded" design.

Old-age or Progressive Creation: God not only designed the laws and set the initial conditions, He also guided the process and/or injected information at key stages in the development of the universe and of life to design new forms of organization that are beyond the powers of chance and law.

Young-age Creation: God not only designed the laws and set the initial conditions. He also created the major life forms within a short period of time (most say six literal days), about 10,000 rather than millions of years ago. Most of the strata in the geological column were laid down by the worldwide flood in Noah's day.

Quote:

In fact, intelligent design theory does not even say anything about the identity of the designer or the nature of God.

Besides the fact that He (alone) exists and intervened in the natural evolution of life... No, that's not saying much at all.

Quote:

Where intelligent design theorists, creationists in general (and I think the scientific data) part ways with evolutionists is when the claim is made that Darwinian principles can produce what is often called "macroevolution." Could one produce, through Darwinian processes, the complex structures found in the cell? How about flight for a bird or mammal? How about the immune system? How about the eye? Could one turn a protozoan into a complex animal, a crustacean into an insect, or a land-mammal into a whale? All of these questions ask if evolution can produce large changes (macroevolution) in an organism. Evolutionists are not allowed to question this fact, even in the face of counter-evidence, or their theory is destroyed. But if we can allow for design, then we can explain the origin of many complex biological features.

And after spending all of the previous questions distancing yourself from Creationists, here you commit the most basic Creationist error: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Besides betraying your lack of familiarity with the literature, the entire argument is one from ignorance. The more questions you ask for which you provide no answer except your ID party line, the more obvious it becomes that ID is a negative thesis.

Quote:

[Interviewer question]How would intelligent design be more useful for scientists than methodological naturalism when working in the lab?
[Luskin]Whether or not intelligent design in inherently opposed to "methodological naturalism," I think that any philosophy is inherently bad for science. So your readers are clear, "methodological naturalism" (MN) is the belief that nothing affects the course of this world except for matter and energy. One cause that methodological naturalism may be missing is intelligent agency... Of course just because ID isn't necessarily always opposed to MN none of this means that I necessarily agree with methodological naturalism. Science shouldn't place constraints on itself, and it should go where the evidence leads. If the evidence points towards design, then so be it--we should follow the evidence where it leads. However, scientists often think design is an appeal to the supernatural. I'm not sure if ID would violate the MN in that respect. Although design may have metaphysical or religious implications, scientifically speaking, it is not an appeal to the supernatural.

I urge all readers to read this particular section of the interview, because Luskins at no point even addresses the question put to him. Not the emphasized section above. If evidence leads to design, so be it... In other words, design is the dead end of the research. Luskin has nothing to offer after it, and it betrays the goal of all variants of Creationists -- to demonstrate God. Also note how carefully he equivocates about ID having metaphysical (and religious) implications but at the same time requires no appeal to them. The illogic is just mind-boggling.

Quote:

The problem is that when trying to generate new biological functions or species, you need lots of chances for the needed mutations to occur. It is just like playing the lottery, the more tickets you buy, the better your chances of winning. Biologists must play the evolution lottery: the more organisms there are and the more time, the better your chances of getting the needed mutation. However, "punq eq," responding to the time constraints for evolution from the fossil record, does the exact opposite that evolution needs--it limits the number of organisms in the very places where the vast majority of major evolutionary change is said to have taken place. Small isolated populations are now required to come up with the evolutionary change over short time periods.

Luskin of course, like his Creationist kins, never fails to grab the opportunity to misrepresent the scientific debate over Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium. But, I emphasized another key error in Luskin's thinking, using the analogy of a lottery ticket. Evolution does not prescibe a defined target to evolve towards. How does one calculate the probability of evolution using a priori assumptions? Luskin dances away...

Quote:

On a sadder note, it is unfortunate that Dr. Gould died earlier this year. The world lost a gifted scientist and writer who did bring class to this debate.

It is interesting that Luskin brings this topic up. Given Luskin's propensity to be speaking past the interviewers to the readers, one has to wonder why Luskin would think that the readers interested in evolution/creationism should not be aware of Gould's death? But then, given his Creationist friends' appaling behavior and inappropriate commentary about Gould's death, this is better seen as a political ploy to distance himself. One wonders what Luskin really says about Gould in private.

Quote:

The problem is that in the fossil record, the Toyota's and the BMW's (the basic designs) cannot be traced back to a common ancestor. Instead, the basic designs appear at the exact same time with the rest of the fossil record showing small variations in that basic design. But since there are no fossils showing how the basic designs evolved from one-another, we have a powerful evidence against common descent.

Non sequitur. Enough said.

Quote:

Many people claim that the designer has to be the God of the Bible because so many people who promote intelligent design are Christians.
In fact, they even think that a mere quote by a proponent of intelligent design saying that "I believe the designer is the God of the Bible" is sufficient to establish that intelligent design is a religious theory. There are many problems with this fallacious argument:

1. Firstly, there are members of the intelligent design movement who are not Christians, or who are not religious at all. To say intelligent design is a religious or Christian theory is to misrepresent those individuals.

2. Secondly, the argument commits the genetic fallacy, which says a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. A claim stands on whether or not it makes sense logically, not on extraneous beliefs of the person making the claim.

3. The arguments behind intelligent design simply have no religious underpinnings. They do not prohibit religious beliefs, they simply do not rely upon religious presumptions. Design is argued straightforwardly from observations from the natural world--there are no references to or even conclusions regarding the supernatural whatsoever. It can only argue that there was design, not who the designer was.

Read the Wedge document, Luskin. Then tell us that the DI is wrong to be pushing ID into public schools. Until then, your dishonesty is just pissing off Christians.

EDIT: Interestingly, here's the mission statement of Luskin's IDEA club:

Quote:

The mission of the IDEA Center

The IDEA Center today is a non-profit organization based out of San Diego and existing under the auspices of <a href="http://www.faithseminary.edu/" target="_blank">Faith Seminary</a>. Our mission statement says we aim to:
Promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an Intelligent Designer

Hold, through other arguments, that the identity of the Designer is consistent with the God of the Bible

Educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life

Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism

Facilitate discussion, debate, and dialogue in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere where individuals feel free to speak their personal views

Host lectures, conferences, and other events for churches, educators, and those interested
Help establish and maintain student-run IDEA Club chapters on school campuses or wherever interest exists
The Center hopes to host classes, conferences, and discussion groups whenever possible to fulfill our mission statement and to include universities, churches, high schools, community institutions, and any other accepting venue in the Center's activities as opportunities and resources avail themselves.

and that of the Faith Seminary:

Quote:

For over 32 years Faith Seminary in Tacoma Washington has been training men and women of all denominations to serve Jesus Christ. We offer residential and external study opportunities tailored to fit your need. Contact us and see how we can help.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]

hezekiah jones · 12-06-2002, 06:50 AM

"So your readers are clear, 'methodological naturalism' (MN) is the belief [sic] that nothing affects the course of this world except for matter and energy."

Is this a typo, did he misspeak, or does this guy just not understand the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism?

It's been explained to them enough, notably in one of Robert Pennock's articles in his anthology. Come to think of it, during my brief sojourn at ARN, there were two or three fairly long threads on Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, but all the IDers, especially Mike Gene, were more obsessed with a review of Pennock's book than with its actual contents.

In fact, several of the IDers out and out stated that they refused to read the book! So I guess it's no wonder the ID "proponents" are still perpetrating this glaring category error.

pangloss · 12-06-2002, 08:13 AM

<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/organizers.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/organizers.shtml</a>

Casey Luskin.

Hi there, my name is Casey and I am a graduate student in earth sciences at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. I just received my undergrad degree from UCSD this past June and now I'm working on a masters in earth sciences. Just a bit about me--I am a huge baseball fan, and I also love sailing, flying, and enjoying the outdoors. I've always had a strong interest in the "creation-evolution" issue and the relationship of science and religion.

As far as "Intelligent Design" is concerned, I would love to see people at UCSD and in the scientific community as a whole recognize the scientific merits of "Intelligent Design theory", and also to recognize the shortcomings of many naturalistic theories of our origins. I think that Intelligent Design theory not only holds up to scientific scrutiny, but that it has much to offer to the advancement of science.

I also believe that the Intelligent Designer happens to care about people, and that there is ample evidence He is the God of the Bible, who has shown the world His love and offered forgiveness through His Son, the predicted Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Being an earth sciences major, I also think that biology could take a lesson from geology, as is explained in the following link: Paradigm Shifts in Geology and Biology: Geosynclinal Theory and Plate Tectonics; Darwinism and Intelligent Design. If you have questions, comments, or even gripes about anything, feel free to e-mail me at "idea@ucsd.edu". Thanks for visiting our IDEA website and I hope that you may choose to get involved with the club. If you have time, please also visit the IDEA Center website. Best wishes and may God bless you!

Tom Ames · 12-06-2002, 10:18 AM

Note: Luskin dropped out of his grad-school program with a terminal Masters. He's now in law school.

ID clearly served HIM well in scientific research.

Tom Ames · 12-06-2002, 10:27 AM

Just to highlight something in Principia's earlier post:

<a href="http://www.ideacenter.org/mission.htm" target="_blank">IDEA Center Mission Statement</a>

Quote:

The IDEA Center mission statement, is agreed upon by our Board of Directors, and is as follows:

The purpose of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center shall be to:

Promote, as a scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an Intelligent Designer
Hold, through other arguments, that the identity of the Designer is consistent with the God of the Bible
Educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life
Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism

And the IDEA Center fulfills these goals by:

Facilitating discussion, debate, and dialogue in a warm, friendly, and open atmosphere where individuals feel free to speak their personal views
Hosting lectures, conferences, and other events for churches, educators, and those interested
Helping to establish and maintain student-run IDEA Club chapters on school campuses or wherever interest exists.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Stagolee ]

theyeti · 12-06-2002, 11:37 AM

Luskin has stated at a recent conference that only Christians will be allowed to head IDEA clubs. So much for religious neutrality.

Luskin fits the definition of a creationist as well as anyone could. I must say that it takes an amazing amout of gall for him to whine about people equating ID with creationism when the man is himself a perfect example of this. Furthermore, I'm curious as to who these non-religious people that are involved with the ID movement are. I've heard this claim numerous times, but I have yet to hear them cite a single example, let alone many. The only one who comes close AFAIK is David Berlinski, who is some sort of weird pagan or something. He's also insane. What really differentiates ID from creationism is its emphasis on ideology over religious doctrine. Niether group is interested in science, other than as a means to an end.

theyeti

pz · 12-06-2002, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
The only one who comes close AFAIK is David Berlinski, who is some sort of weird pagan or something. He's also insane.

Not in any clinical sense, of course, but only in the casual meaning of the term, typically preceded by the modifier "freakin'" or "batshit".

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

12-05-2002, 02:26 PM	#23
The Lone Ranger Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Eastern U.S. Posts: 1,230	[IDist] Those mean old Darwinists expect us to provide evidence for our claims! It's not fair! They're just being close-minded!!! [/IDist] Cheers, Michael

12-06-2002, 06:50 AM	#25
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	"So your readers are clear, 'methodological naturalism' (MN) is the belief [sic] that nothing affects the course of this world except for matter and energy." Is this a typo, did he misspeak, or does this guy just not understand the difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism? It's been explained to them enough, notably in one of Robert Pennock's articles in his anthology. Come to think of it, during my brief sojourn at ARN, there were two or three fairly long threads on Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, but all the IDers, especially Mike Gene, were more obsessed with a review of Pennock's book than with its actual contents. In fact, several of the IDers out and out stated that they refused to read the book! So I guess it's no wonder the ID "proponents" are still perpetrating this glaring category error.

12-06-2002, 08:13 AM	#26
pangloss Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,302	<a href="http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/organizers.shtml" target="_blank">http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/organizers.shtml</a> Casey Luskin. Hi there, my name is Casey and I am a graduate student in earth sciences at Scripps Institution for Oceanography. I just received my undergrad degree from UCSD this past June and now I'm working on a masters in earth sciences. Just a bit about me--I am a huge baseball fan, and I also love sailing, flying, and enjoying the outdoors. I've always had a strong interest in the "creation-evolution" issue and the relationship of science and religion. As far as "Intelligent Design" is concerned, I would love to see people at UCSD and in the scientific community as a whole recognize the scientific merits of "Intelligent Design theory", and also to recognize the shortcomings of many naturalistic theories of our origins. I think that Intelligent Design theory not only holds up to scientific scrutiny, but that it has much to offer to the advancement of science. I also believe that the Intelligent Designer happens to care about people, and that there is ample evidence He is the God of the Bible, who has shown the world His love and offered forgiveness through His Son, the predicted Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ. Being an earth sciences major, I also think that biology could take a lesson from geology, as is explained in the following link: Paradigm Shifts in Geology and Biology: Geosynclinal Theory and Plate Tectonics; Darwinism and Intelligent Design. If you have questions, comments, or even gripes about anything, feel free to e-mail me at "idea@ucsd.edu". Thanks for visiting our IDEA website and I hope that you may choose to get involved with the club. If you have time, please also visit the IDEA Center website. Best wishes and may God bless you!

12-06-2002, 10:18 AM	#27
Tom Ames Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nacogdoches, Texas Posts: 260	Note: Luskin dropped out of his grad-school program with a terminal Masters. He's now in law school. ID clearly served HIM well in scientific research.

12-06-2002, 11:37 AM	#29
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Luskin has stated at a recent conference that only Christians will be allowed to head IDEA clubs. So much for religious neutrality. Luskin fits the definition of a creationist as well as anyone could. I must say that it takes an amazing amout of gall for him to whine about people equating ID with creationism when the man is himself a perfect example of this. Furthermore, I'm curious as to who these non-religious people that are involved with the ID movement are. I've heard this claim numerous times, but I have yet to hear them cite a single example, let alone many. The only one who comes close AFAIK is David Berlinski, who is some sort of weird pagan or something. He's also insane. What really differentiates ID from creationism is its emphasis on ideology over religious doctrine. Niether group is interested in science, other than as a means to an end. theyeti

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.