Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hezekiah jones · 06-20-2002, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ishalon:
whats not good is how many of their lies i didnt know the truth about ...

Here is something of a rebuttal from the same publication:

<a href="http://hpronline.org/news/251838.html" target="_blank">In "The Designer" We Trust?</a>

(Requires e-mail registration.)

Also of great interest:
<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3878_analysis_of_the_discovery_inst_4_5_2002.asp" target="_blank">Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography
</a>

I performed essentially the same task as the NCSE with respect to Stephen Meyer's Utah Law Review article, which is available here:

<a href="http://www.arn.org/meyer/smhome.htm" target="_blank">Teaching The Origins Controversy</a>

In this article Meyer uses his own inferences drawn from papers and books by several dozen scientists to support his argument. In fact the inferences drawn by Meyer (there are about 15 heavily footnoted statements) can be said to represent the axioms upon which he bases much of the rest of his argument.

Although it is rather lengthy (72 pages) I strongly suggest interested parties read the Utah Law Review article, since it represents the current basis for the Discovery Institute's potential legal case. Meyer himself confirmed this to me recently, although he added that the DI has since backed away from its desire to introduce ID directly into the curricula at this time. Instead, the DI, as you are probably aware, wants to "teach the controversy."

See Meyer's op-ed piece from the Cincinnati Enquirer:

<a href="http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1134" target="_blank">Teach The Controversy</a>

Unfortunately for the Discovery Institute the "controversy" is pretty much entirely based on its own misrepresentation of papers and books culled from the peer reviewed literature, as detailed in the citations included in the Utah Law Review article.

Following the example of the NCSE's response to the DI's "bibliography," I contacted nearly 50 of the cited scientists, and to date have received replies from 41. All but one strongly disagree with Meyer's conclusions. I compiled the responses into an appendix to my paper that totals 32 pages of ten-point type. Most of the replies are quite extensive, and are not particularly flattering to the DI's position, not because they contain disparaging remarks directed towards the ID gang (although some do), but because they carefully explain the implications of their research in marked contrast to Meyer's erroneous inferences.

Many of the scientists were previously unaware as to the use to which their findings were put by the DI. Of course several others were quite familiar with similar quote mining exercises by various antievolutionists.

In my opinion the DI's misrepresentations are utterly disgraceful and I believe it is imperative that we expose the tactics with which the DI supports its activities. As you know Meyer and many of the other DI principals are themselves working academics and it is shameful that they would operate in such an unprofessional manner, of all places in the pages of a respected law review.

I obtained permission from each respondent to include their remarks in an academic paper that I submitted a couple of weeks ago. At the moment I do not have permission to disseminate their remarks any further, but I am working on that.

Grumpy · 06-20-2002, 01:05 PM

Quote:

He compares doubting the Darwinian Orthodoxy to opposing the the party line of a Stalinist regime. "What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? That's the sort of situation we're in. You have to play your cards very close to the vest, and you can't really say what you're about," Dembski told the HPR.

IIRC, the bitch about Lysenko was that his conceptual lock on Soviet genetics led, even if indirectly, to massive crop failures and famines. If only "correct" science had been allowed to flourish under Stalin & Lysenko, the damage would not have been done.

So... what "damage" would embracing I.D. prevent? What new areas of research would it unlock? If I.D. is the equivalent of relativistic or quantum-scale physics, then it should provide alternate models for how things work.

Let's say a flagellum was designed by God (or superintelligent ETs). Of what use is this information? From what I can see, all you would know about the designing intelligence is that it has an affinity for flagella (and a fondness for beetles).

scigirl · 06-20-2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
science - (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world.

Name me one example where scientific progress has been impeded by "adhering to a materialistic explanation of the universe." Just one.

No kidding Mageth! That has been my pet peeve lately, of anti-evolutionists.

When they whine about how evolutionary biologists assume and look for natural explanations, I say, fine, but you better be whining about the meteorologists who don't mention God's wrath in the thunderstorm watches, or the doctor who looks for a bacterium in your lungs when you have a cough instead of calling in an exorcist!

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

scigirl

KC · 06-21-2002, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

No kidding Mageth! That has been my pet peeve lately, of anti-evolutionists.

When they whine about how evolutionary biologists assume and look for natural explanations, I say, fine, but you better be whining about the meteorologists who don't mention God's wrath in the thunderstorm watches, or the doctor who looks for a bacterium in your lungs when you have a cough instead of calling in an exorcist!

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

scigirl

In data processing, when we can't explain why an application is doing what it is doing, we often resort to blaming 'bit pixies'. Our boss won't buy that explanation, naturalistic bastard.

Cheers,

KC

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: KCdgw ]

Grumpy · 06-21-2002, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
Name me one example where scientific progress has been impeded by "adhering to a materialistic explanation of the universe." Just one.

Come to think of it, there have been impediments to science caused by materialists who refused to back down. I'm thinking, for example, of the early resistance to plate tectonics. As you see, the new idea in that case was a materialistic explanation itself. But the fact remains that the opponents also were materialists.

HRG · 06-21-2002, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy:


Come to think of it, there have been impediments to science caused by materialists who refused to back down. I'm thinking, for example, of the early resistance to plate tectonics. As you see, the new idea in that case was a materialistic explanation itself. But the fact remains that the opponents also were materialists.

Which doesn't mean that the impediment was due to materialism.

Regards,
HRG.

lpetrich · 06-22-2002, 12:27 AM

In the case of plate tectonics, it was one materialist vs. another

What would be a good example would be a rejection of something correct simply because it seemed un-materialistic.

The only example I can think of is the behaviorist school of psychology, which effectively denied the existence of mental states. In fact, some behaviorists had claimed that thinking was sub-audible talking to oneself (seriously!).

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Principia · 07-03-2002, 01:36 PM

Read the eminent Mike Gene give his rendition of 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers', <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000083;p=2" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

That's an interesting perception you have there. I always rise to his defense? That sounds a tad melodramatic, given the many Wells-threads I have not participated in. I recall only two instances of defending Wells: 1) I agree with him that textbooks often teach about the Miller-Urey experiments in a misleading way; and 2) I object to the personal attacks that attempt to demonize him. If Wells' criticisms are leveled at common descent, there is indeed a disconnect there. But I confess that I don't pay much attention to these arguments. This is significant.

To truly rebuke Wells, I would have to listen carefully to his arguments. But my intellectual energy and time is quite limited, thus I choose to expend it on developing my own notions (consider my web page and the absence of any defense of Wells). I figure if Wells is wrong, there are plenty of other evolutionists out there looking for fights. I invested a small degree of energy concerning Miller-Urey, because this is somewhat connected to my hypotheses. And I defend against demonization because I know how it feels to be demonized (so that one pushes my buttons).

Take the moth arguments. I've never really followed them, as it seems so inconsequential to me. The only thing I did read all the way through was Wade's NYT article, which underscored my hunch - these topics entail enough ambiguity to allow people to reach differing conclusions. But you need to understand something. I have myself argued with many ID critics. I have experienced the way many have twisted my words into strawman positions, have launched psychological attacks against me, have employed ad hominems, have made me march to the rhythm of their stereotypes, etc. Thus, when I see them make similar charges against Wells, it's hard for me to take them seriously. Like I keep saying, I don't think ID critics realize the extent of their credibility problem. If people butcher my arguments to score their little political debate points, and seek to draw me into their dark and nasty stereotypes, why in the world would they think I'd forget all this and accept their critiques of Wells on face value. Do you take me for a fool?

RB, don't waste your time writing chapters for me . If you want instead, we can go through several textbooks and the way they represent the Miller-Urey experiments. Or we can discuss the validity of making personal attacks against someone. Other than this, my interests lie elsewhere.

Why the hell is it so hard for those in the ID camp to get their stories straight? I mean, are they so desperate that they think scientific criticism amongst themselves would completely discredit their views?

How convenient for Mike Gene to find such inconsistencies between him and Wells irrelevant to ID.

You should see the hypocrisy at ARN. They harp on the bias and monopoly of scientific enterprises, 'indoctrinating' children with naturalism. But, yet, when a YEC comes up with crap like HIV doesn't exist, and doesn't lead to AIDS, there is complete silence.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae[retired] ]

Principia · 07-08-2002, 04:56 AM

More from MG, <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000067" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

<someone>: But it's perfectly okay when leading ID advocates form most of their arguments around the motivations and religious beliefs of evolutionary biologists, and then officially pidgeonhole evolution as "Materialism". I think we can see who's crying like a baby.

I've don't do this. And this sidequest began with someone's subjective impression about my MO.

But speaking of "leading ID advocates," I'd think we could all agree that this is Behe and Dembski. And sorry, but I don't agree with your characterization. Behe framed most of his arguments around the concept of IC and its relevance to RM&NS. Dembski framed most of his arguments around the concept of CSI and his Explanatory Filter.

Take Behe. In his book, he mentions Jerry Coyne only once (AFAIK) - he quotes him as a skeptic of neo-Darwinism's explanatory power. In doing so, he doesn't pidgeonhole Coyne nor does he make an issue out of Coyne's motivations/beliefs. In return, Coyne's review of the book begins by talking about YEC and the Global Flood and ends by talking about Duane Gish. In between, we also find Coyne trying to make an issue out of Behe's religious beliefs. Clearly, Coyne's review (one of the first) set the stage whereby IDCs pidgeonhole and psychoanalyze ID proponents. Or consider Cavalier-Smith. Behe mentions him only once, in a discussion about the origin of the eukaryotic flagellum. Behe says good things about Coyne, paints him in a favorable light, but does note that his BioSystems paper is made up of fuzzy word-pictures. In return, C-S writes a review with an ad hominem as the title, "The Blind Biochemist." C-S also plays the religion card in the conclusion of his review.

Of course, we can attempt to shift focus off these facts and raise Behe's "elephant in the room" metaphor. But the difference is that Behe doesn't make an issue out of any personality. IDCs, on the other hand, seem obsessed with personalities, their motives, their beliefs, etc. Of course, if you think ID = Nonsense, then those issues would seem relevant, as you have to explain why someone would embrace nonsense. On this forum, for example, if I try to discuss the concept of IC, invariably the IDC wants to discuss Behe's use of the concept (the debunk Behe mindset). Or recently, when trying to discuss Dembski's concept of plocal, I tried to focus on the general concept, but others are more interested in Dembski's use of the concept (the debunk Dembski mindset). None of this surprises me, as IDCs are not interested in thinking through these concepts. They'd rather debunk "leading ID advocates," because that is where the political payoff resides.

The bottom line? When the IDCs cease their ad hominem attacks and pidgeonholing, I'll be very happy to stop making an issue of their biases and inability to address these issues in a fair and open-minded manner. The ball is in their court. It always has been.

Cranky Mike

Oh it is so unfair!

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae[retired] ]

tgamble · 07-08-2002, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae[retired]:
Take Behe. In his book, he mentions Jerry Coyne only once (AFAIK) - he quotes him as a skeptic of neo-Darwinism's explanatory power.

Which is rather dishonest of him.
<a href="http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR22.1/coyne.html" target="_blank">http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR22.1/coyne.html</a>

4. Finally, Behe's arguments, like those of Biblical creationists, are heavily larded with quotations from evolutionists, many taken out of context to make it seem that our field is riven with self-doubt. More than anything else, it is this use of selective quotation that shows Behe's close kinship to his religious predecessors.

I am painfully and personally acquainted with Behe's penchant for fiddling with quotations. On page 29 of Darwin's Black Box he writes:

Quote:

Jerry Coyne, of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, arrives at an unanticipated verdict: "We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak."

Apparently I am one of those faint-hearted biologists who see the errors of Darwinism but cannot admit it. This was news to me. I am surely numbered among the more orthodox evolutionists, and hardly see our field as fatally flawed. The paper in question (actually by Allen Orr and myself)3 addresses a technical debate among evolutionists: are adaptations based on a lot of small genetic mutations (the traditional neo-Darwinian view), a few big mutations, or some mixture of the two? We concluded that although there was not much evidence one way or the other, there were indications that mutations of large effect might occasionally be important. Our paper cast no doubt whatever on the existence of evolution or the ability of natural selection to explain adaptations.

I went back to see exactly what Orr and I had written. It turns out that, in the middle of our sentence, Behe found a period that wasn't there. Here's the full citation, placed in its context:

Quote:

Although a few biologists have suggested an evolutionary role for mutations or large effect (Gould 1980; Maynard Smith 1983: Gottlieb, 1984; Turner, 1985), the neo-Darwinian view has largely triumphed, and the genetic basis of adaptation now receives little attention. Indeed, the question is considered so dead that few may know the evidence responsible for its demise.

Here we review this evidence. We conclude--unexpectedly--that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation.

We hasten to add, however, that we are not "macromutationists" who believe that adaptations are nearly always based on major genes. The neo-Darwinian view could well be correct. It is almost certainly true, however, that some adaptations involve many genes of small effect and others involve major genes. The question we address is, How often does adaptation involve a major gene? We hope to encourage evolutionists to reexamine this neglected question and to provide the evidence to settle it.

By inserting the period (and removing the sentence from its neighbors), Behe has twisted our meaning. Our discussion of one aspect of Darwinism--the relative size of adaptive mutations--has suddenly become a critique of the entire Darwinian enterprise. This is not sloppy scholarship, but deliberate distortion.

06-22-2002, 12:27 AM	#27
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	In the case of plate tectonics, it was one materialist vs. another What would be a good example would be a rejection of something correct simply because it seemed un-materialistic. The only example I can think of is the behaviorist school of psychology, which effectively denied the existence of mental states. In fact, some behaviorists had claimed that thinking was sub-audible talking to oneself (seriously!). [ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.