Reflectorite
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 23:24:27 -0500, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
>SJ>There is AFAIK no plans by IDErs to have ID taught in public schools.
>>ID's main objective is to have the philosophical assumptions of
>>evolution and its problems taught in public schools.
>>
>>Having said that, there is no reason why ID should not be taught in public
>>schools. ID is a scientific position not a religion. It has as much
>>right to be taught in public schools as materialistic-naturalism which
>>is now taught in public schools.
>CC>If it's a *scientific* theory, then there must be testable empirical
>implications.
I do not claim that ID is itself a *low-level* "scientific theory", but rather a
*general* "scientific theory", or model, or paradigm. In Popperian terms I
see ID as a "metaphysical research programme" in the same sense that
Darwinism is:
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research programme-a possible framework for
testable scientific theories." (Popper K.R., "Unended Quest," 1982, p.168)
There are "testable empirical implications" of theories within the
framework of ID. For example, Behe's "irreducible complexity" to
name one.
Also, because Darwinism claims to be the only materialist explanation,
even in principle, of life's complex design:
"Cumulative selection, by slow and gradual degrees, is the explanation, the
only workable explanation that has ever been proposed, for the existence of
life's complex design." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991,
p.317).
a major part of ID's argument will be showing that Darwinism is false, or at
least of limited applicability.
>CC>Name *ONE.*
As I have also stated before, my personal position is that it is probably a
waste of time ID trying to convince a committed atheist like Chris of the
reality of design. That is because a committed atheist has already made his
mind up in advance that there can be no Designer, so he/she will
automatically convert any evidence for design into *apparent* design.
Two good examples are in the quotes below, where the atheists Dawkins
and Crick stare at the evidence for design, admit it looks like design, but
then convert it automatically into *apparent* design:
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," 1991, reprint, p.1)
and
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved. " (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit," 1990,
p.138).
I might ask Chris how could his anti-design position be falsified? That is, if
there was design, how would he ever know it?
Fortunately, ID does not need to convince committed atheists of design,
but all it needs to do is make its case to the general public, 90% of whom
accept some form of design, and who ultimately control the public purse
strings that fund science. If the general public become convinced that ID is
a legitimate research program and the tiny minority of atheists who control
science refuse to allow ID access to mainstream scientific journals and
funding, then eventually funding will have to be taken from the general
science budget and granted to ID. Hopefully it won't come to that.
I would however point out that this is my *personal* position and it may
not be the position of the ID movement's leadership.
CC>Further, if it's a scientific theory that's supposed to be superior to NET
>(Naturalistic Evolutionary Theory), then there must be at least one empirical
>implication that can be tested and that is not implied by NET.
See above.
CC>For example, if it's a *scientific* theory, it might predict that there
>would be
>long-term and continuous reappearances of fish living (and rapidly dying, of
>course) in the middle of deserts without any visible normal means of getting
>there (since the alleged intelligent designer could simply keep creating
>fish as
>fast as they died). But, this is something that would *not* be predicted on
>the basis of NET (in fact, NET would predict that fish would not continue to
>live and reproduce while flopping around in the hot, dry sand).
>
>Thus, if ID theory *could* logically predict such a fact, and *if* it were
>found to be the case, then it would be a strong point in favor of *some* kind
>of minimalist ID theory (i.e., aliens producing fish and depositing them in the
>desert, perhaps). Of course, this would not be non-naturalist design of the
>type that you want so desperately and pathetically to be true, but at least it
>would be design of sorts.
>
>Until some such testable logical implication of ID theory is found, all of your
>claims about ID being a *scientific* theory are just the usual mindless
>creationist blather, with no more excuse or justification than the Bible's
>"theory" of creation.
Chris' absurd examples above just confirm my point about it being a waste
of time trying to convince committed atheists of ID.
>>>RW>It seems to me you're seriously understating the aims of IDers. I find
>>>it hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s] teaching children orthodox
>>>>Darwinism"!
>SJ>That Richard finds it "hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s]
>>teaching children orthodox Darwinism" only shows that Richard knows very little
>>about Johnson. Johnson has consistently said over the years that he does not
>>favor banning evolution. What he favors is teaching *more* about evolution,
>>not less. Here is an example on the NCSE site which dates back to *1993*.
>>And I have several more like that :
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>http://natcenscied.org/johnson.htm NCSE SPECIAL: Interview with Phillip E.
>Johnson California Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, Third Quarter, 1993 ...
>PJ: There's been a lot of bad teaching for a lot of reasons and I'm in favor
>good teaching, if we want to teach these kids more about evolution I'm in
>favor of that....
>CC>Since Johnson himself has consistently either refused to learn about evolution
>or is simply outright *lying* about it, it's hard to believe that he would want
>school children do learn about it. If he *did* want school children to learn
>about it, wouldn't he be willing either to learn about it himself or at
>least not lie about what evolutionary theory *is* and implies and is based on?
More confirmation of my personal view that it is a waste of time trying to
convince the Chris' of this world of the truth of ID. They can't even accept
that someone who is opposed to their position can be telling the truth!
Fortunately the general public will probably assume that those making the
accusations of "lying" have something to hide.
[...]
>RW>Again, you're understating the aims of IDers. They don't just want
>>children to be "aware" of ID. They want to *teach* ID in schools.
>SJ>See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would be nothing wrong
>>with it being taught in schools. But I am not aware of anyone in the ID
>>movement who is pushing for ID to be taught in schools.
See above. By "*scientific* theory" I mean it in the most general sense.
>CC>I have some doubt that your ignorance of any such activity is good evidence
>against it. Also, since creationism is a form of intelligent design theory
>(even stupider than your own), and since even you must know that there *are*
>efforts to get creationism taught in the public schools, your claim of
>ignorance in this regard seems just a tad disingenuous.
That "creationism is a form of intelligent design theory" does not mean
that intelligent design theory is a form of creationism. As I have pointed out
previously, there are members of the ID movement who are not even theists,
like Todd Moody, an agnostic philosophy professor:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.christianityonline.com/ct/2000/006/1.42.html ... Christianity
Today May 22, 2000, Vol. 44, No. 6, Page 42 .... We're Not in Kansas
Anymore. Why secular scientists and media can't admit that Darwinism
might be wrong. By Nancy Pearcey | posted 5/19/00 Thus the id movement
has become a "big tent," attracting people from a variety of religious
backgrounds. CRSC fellow David Berlinski, who has published
Commentary articles critical of Darwinism, is Jewish. In Kansas, board
supporters included local Muslims and a group of Hare Krishnas, who
showed up at a meeting wearing saffron robes. Even agnostics who believe
the universe is in some sense teleological have teamed up with the id
movement--figures like Michael Denton, author of the influential
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His most recent book, Nature's Destiny,
argues that purpose pervades the universe at all levels. "The power of ID is
precisely its minimalism," says Todd Moody, an agnostic and professor at
St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia. "It travels light, with no theological
baggage."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this to the List on Thu, 25 May 2000, so if Chris saw it, yet is
still claiming that ID is a form of creationism, it shows that his is a
position that is impervious to evidence.
>SJ>But anti-ID is taught as science in public schools. A particularly clear
>>example of this is my university Biology textbook which has an interview
>>with Dawkins in which he argues against ID and for Darwinism's "apparent
>>design": [...]
>>(Dawkins R., "Interview," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
>>"Biology," 1999, p.412).
>>
>>If Darwinism is allowed to be taught in schools and universities as a theory
>>which explains design (as apparent), then ID should also be taught in
>>schools as an alternative theory which also explains design (as real).
>CC>Not in *science* classes, because the entire *type* of "explanation" offered
>by such a theory is a purely *NON-scientific* explanation (all it does is
>*account* for empirical facts; it fails to *imply* empirical facts). It is
>a "Just So" type of explanation, without testable empirical implications, except for
>the fact that virtually *every* organism, when studied closely, loses its
>appearance of intelligent design, which should not be the case if Paley's
>kind of intelligent design were true (though, obviously, ID theory can
>*account* for any even remotely imaginable empirical facts, whether they are
>the result of intelligent design or not -- and this is one of it's major
>weaknesses). Further, if the instances of apparent design failure are explained
>away, then so also is the appearance of design itself, on similar grounds.
>That is, for example, if the grotesque kludge of the human wrist is explained
>as merely an instance of an *apparent* design flaw (which, if we but could read
>the mind of God, would make perfect design sense), then all instances of
>*apparent* design *also* can be explained away on the same kind of
>reasoning (i.e., ignorance of the blind workings of a Godless Nature).
The quotes above from Dawkins and Crick amply refute Chris's claim that:
"virtually *every* organism, when studied closely, loses its appearance of
intelligent design." Crick in particular is a molecular biologist and he would
not have to keep "constantly keep in mind that what" he was seeing "was
not designed,.... " if design was not evident even at the molecular level.
Besides, even if Chris was right, it would not be evidence against design.
The Mona Lisa is designed, but if one got so close that all one could see
was dots of paint, one would not be able to see the design, though it
was still there.
CC>When Johnson can come up with a *testable* empirical intelligent design
>theory that predicts that fish will not be found to be living in deserts
>(without
>special support provided by humans, etc.), or some such prediction, then he'll
>have at least a *start* on a truly explanatory theory (of course, he also
>has to
>make his theory consistent with literally millions of other scientific
>facts, and he
>must also make his theory more parsimonious than alternative theories at hand,
>etc.). Until then, *his* claims, like yours, are just so much intellectually
>dishonest blather (dishonest, because you continue to make these claims even
>when you have not provided any rational basis for them and in spite of the fact
>that the abject and essentially *total* failure of ID theory to provide a
>*scientific* (rather than *merely* a "Just So" type of explanation)
See above. My personal position is that those who hold extremist positions
like Chris' are just making themselves irrelevant to the debate, and the ID
movement need not waste any time trying to convince them, but can just
go around them. Fortunately the vast majority of the general public, and
probably scientists, do not hold such extremist positions.
[...]
>RW>I know Johnson says that. But do you really think he would have the
>>theory of evolution taught in schools if he had the choice?
>SJ>This is a fallacious argument. How would Johnson *ever* have the choice
>>over whether or not evolution is taught in schools?
>CC>Since Johnson either doesn't know what evolutionary theory *is* (except in
>the most incredibly shallow school-child sense) or is lying about what it
>is, it
>doesn't really matter what he says, does it? Whether he is merely dedicatedly,
>devotedly *ignorant* or deliberately misrepresenting evolutionary theory (and
>naturalism as well), he obviously cannot be trusted when he makes such
>claims. Further, since it's *Johnson* making the claims, he effectively grants
>that it is a legitimate topic of speculation and supposition -- and suspicion
>that he doesn't really mean it but is merely pretending to be unbiased.
See above. I am *very* happy with Chris continuing with his bluff and
bluster as a substitute for rational argument. Chris can make this sort of
`argument' on a relatively private Internet discussion forum, but as the
debate gets out into the public arena, he and his ilk will need to lift their
game. Otherwise the public will almost certainly perceive Chris' ilk as just
another power-elite, well past their `use-by' date, trying desperately to cling
to power.
CC>I say "pretending to be unbiased" because he never seems to acknowledge
>that non-naturalism (which he equates with theism) has a *special* burden
>of proof that naturalism does not have. He consistently treats naturalism
>and non-naturalism as if they were on the same metaphysical and
>epistemological level, with the same *kinds* of evidence and argument
>available to both. But, the very nature of theism is that it claims the
>existence of a *non-natural* God, and a concomitant non-naturalistic level
>of reality. We *live* in the "natural" world (whether it's truly natural or
>not), so no special proof of its existence is necessary or even logically
>possible (since a proof would have to rest on the acceptance of the
>"natural" existence of the person claiming to have a proof). The existence
>of the natural world (in a broad sense of "natural world") is thus
>*logically* axiomatic (a "proof" of it would have to be circular or
>*assume* something outside of it, and any denial of it is contradicted in
>the very act of stating it).
It is interesting how Chris wants to continually set up the terms of the
debate so his side wins by default. Only a position that sensed it would lose
the debate if it was on a level playing field would need to resort to such
tactics.
CC>But a *non-natural* world or being requires a *radical* kind of proof,
>because it is not self-evident in *any* rational sense and because such a
>world is not contained *in* the natural world. Johnson has, in effect, made
>his *career* in anti-naturalism on the basis of refusing to accept or
>honestly acknowledge this absolutely basic distinction between the
>fundamental *types* of facts claimed in naturalism and non-naturalism. His
>knowledge of law makes this monstrous lapse utterly inexcusable and an
>almost sure sign (if not absolutely final logical *proof*) of his
>dishonesty (as if any such additional proof were needed beyond his
>decade-long (at least) attempt to defeat "Darwinism" by misrepresentation).
>Again, this means that he *cannot* be trusted to mean *anything* that he
>says that sounds even remotely open minded and rational.
See above.
>RW>Remember his strategy
>>is called the "Wedge Strategy"--start off with relatively modest demands,
>>and work up to your real goals.
>SJ>Again, so what? That is the *proper* way to go about promoting one's
>>viewpoint in a democratic society. How far ID's "Wedge Strategy" will get
>>will depend how sound its arguments are. In the end it is up to the general
>>public to have the information presented it can make an informed choice
>>between apparent design (Darwinism) and real design (ID). The Darwinists
>>want the public to believe in apparent design without being able to hear the
>>evidence for real design.
>CC>Oh no, they don't. We're just waiting for some real evidence of real design
>to be found.
If this has any meaning Chris would need to state up front what would be
"real evidence of real design", such that he would accept it if ID produced
it.
CC>Further, at least some of us believe that "Intelligent Design" theory
>*should* be taught, in depth, detail, and at length, and even in *science*
>classes, as a real-world major example of what science and scientific
>reasoning are *not*, as a major example of *anti-*science, as an example of
>a major attempt at substituting blind faith for reason, and incredible
>shallow pseudo-reason (of the type you use extensively in your posts) for
>actual logic and cognitivity.
That would be *great*! Having just finished my first semester lectures in
in my Biology degree unit Origins & Evolution of Life, with a `late heavy
bombardment' of "Evolution" I, II, III, IV, I am now more confident than
ever that ID would do *very* well if it was allowed into schools to critique
evolution and present its own case.
CC>The massive epistemological errors, the presumptiveness, the non-predictive
>nature of "real" design theory should be spelled out and proved by example
>after example from "intelligent design" literature. Virtually no one could
>go through a truly *scientific* look at "design theory" and still find it
>plausible, except for those who are so devoted to such an approach for
>*psychological* reasons (such as Johnson, etc.) that the facts that
>invalidate it are simply irrelevant or are consistently distorted or
>explained away.
Since the vast majority of human beings in all ages have believed in some
form of design, the charge of "*psychological* reasons" would apply even
more to the tiny minority who deny design.
>RW>The Wedge Strategy's goal is: "To replace
>>materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and
>>hurnan beings are created by God". Note: "replace" not "supplement".
>SJ>Again, so what? If ID thinks that its view is true and that its opposite
>>materialism-naturalism is false, it will of course have a *long-term*
>>goal to replace materialism, just like materialism has the same goal to replace
>>theism.
>>
>>The difference is that the methods ID wants to do it by are reasoned
>>arguments and an *open* discussion of real vs apparent design, not by the
>>use of power and the marginalisation of rivals that Darwinism uses.
>CC>This is an example of Johnsonian disingenuousness in the extreme (Steve,
>you have learned well at the feet of your master). As long as Johnson and
>the rest deny the special burden of proof for non-naturalism, as long as
>they pretend that "Just So" explanation is relevantly and importantly the
>same as *scientific* explanation, as long as they equate non-predictive
>theory with empirically testable theory, *open* discussion of the two
>approaches is the *last* thing ID theorists can possibly want. Open (and
>*honest*!) discussion is almost completely and absolutely incompatible with
>such an epistemological basis. The whole idea of such claims is to *thwart*
>open discussion. Anyone who does not believe this is urged to read some of
>Johnson's books, to observe how he: a) Misstates facts and theories with
>almost wild abandon (for an especially laughable example, see Johnson's
>remarks on information and information theory in "Defeating Darwinism by
>Opening Minds").
See above about Chris needing a question-begging "special burden of
proof" to win the argument.
And as for thwarting "open discussion", there is a simple empirical test:
which side is calling for "open discussion" and which side is doing its
best to avoid it?
CC>Steve's argument here could equally well be applied to numerology,
>astrology, or any other crazy theory without a shred of supporting evidence
>or testable implications. Should we teach the theory that the Earth rests
>on the back of a giant tortoise as well as the theory that it simply exists
>on its own, not actually resting on anything? Should we teach children that
>the Earth is flat, as well as the theory that it's essentially round?
If Chris and his ilk *really* thought ID was like "numerology" or
"astrology", they wouldn't need to bluster on with ad hominems, but would
be wasting no time inviting ID to lay out its case on a public level playing
field (e.g. in mainstream scientific journals), so ID could be refuted fair
and square.
But the more the materialists avoid such a fair contest of ideas, the more
they will give the public (including the less committed of their own
supporters) the impression that deep down they are afraid that ID would
win!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established
by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein
structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between
a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They
include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the
brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of
locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of
speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual
ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens
sapiens - wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable
evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like
species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is
hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the
ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of
gorillas and chimpanzees." (Morgan E., "The Aquatic Ape: A Theory of
Human Evolution," [1982], Souvenir Press: London, 1989, reprint, pp.17-18)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 04 2000 - 19:03:21 EDT