Reflectorites
On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:06:51 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
[...]
>SJ>See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would
>be nothing wrong with it being taught in schools.
WE>People keep saying that, but also keep failing to point out
>how the claim is justified. .
As I have pointed out many times before, to someone with a prior
philosophical position that science is inherently materialistic and
naturalistic, ID can *never* be science.
But ID does not need to convince committed materialist-naturalists that it
is science. That cannot be done. All that ID needs to do is convince the
general public that ID is science and eventually materialist-naturalists will
either have to accept ID within science or part of materialistic-naturalistic
science's public funding will be removed to pay for ID science.
WE>Dembski has not made IDC concepts science yet, certainly.
The adding of the "C" (i.e. "creationist") to "ID" shows that the
materialist-naturalists cannot accept, for *philosophical* reasons,
that ID is science.
The simple fact is that ID is not "creationism" (even though many
IDers are, like me, creationists) because some IDers are theistic
evolutionists and some are not even theists. I sent the following
in a recent response to one of Chris' posts:
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
Now if Wesley does not drop the "C" from "IDC" it shows that his position
too, is "impervious to evidence".
>SJ>But I am not aware of anyone in the ID movement who is
>pushing for ID to be taught in schools.
[...]
WE>Personal ignorance is not a reliable means of characterizing
>real world events.
Nevertheless, that I am a member of the ID movement and aware of most
of what ID is doing, yet I am not aware of any push to have ID itself taught
in public schools, is a fact.
I do not regard exposing the philosophical assumptions of evolution and its
problems, weaknesses and errors, as ID. Indeed, it is what evolution itself
should be doing!
But I probably should have added something about the ID leadership,
which is what I did mean, but expressed it badly . It is always possible that
individual IDers who are not members of the ID leadership are, on an
individual basis, trying to teach ID in public schools.
I also should point out that my denial that there is, as yet, any push by the
ID leadership to have ID itself taught in public schools, should not be
thought as indicating some embarrassment. I wish that ID would be taught
in public schools as soon as possible! To me it is just a matter of setting the
record straight as to what stage ID is at.
WE>The Roger DeHart situation recently
>discussed here indicates heavy involvement of principals from
>the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and
>Culture. Like Jonathan Wells' October 20, 1999 presentation
>at the Burlington-Edison High School. Like William Dembski's
>book signing in support of DeHart.
My understanding of the above is that DeHart was trying to correct errors
in textbooks about evolution (like Haeckel's fraudulent embryos). If
correcting errors about evolution is defined as ID, then I stand corrected
and ID is now being taught in public schools!
WE>The DI CRSC congressional
>briefing (also discussed here) was specifically aimed at
>influencing legislators concerning educational policy.
><http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0508-102.html>
That is not actually teaching ID in public schools. But I should add
that ID is probably moving towards teaching ID in public schools.
WE>(Johnson, Meyer, Pearcey, and Behe as people in the IDC
>movement looking to push the teaching of ID in schools.
>Dembski, to his credit, withdrew from the briefing.)
Well "looking to push the teaching of ID in schools" confirms my point.
They are not doing it yet, except perhaps as isolated individuals.
WE>Following the Kansas Board of Education release of new
>standards, various indications of DI CRSC activity and
>activism were seen by many, but apparently not Stephen. Like
>Jay Wesley Richards' op ed piece (Darwinism and Design,
>Washington Post, Saturday, August 21, 1999; Page A19). Like
>the November 4, 1999 roundtable in Topeka, Kansas featuring
>Stephen Meyer, David DeWolf, and Jonathan Wells of the DI
>CRSC.
See above. None of the above is about teaching ID in public schools, unless
exposing evolution's philosophical assumptions and weakness and
correcting its errors is defined as ID.
WE>I think one would have to be particularly inattentive to so
>blandly proclaim no personal knowledge of the extensive
>efforts of the DI CRSC to influence educational policy to push
>IDC through political process.
No. There is simply nothing in the above that suggest that leading IDers are
as yet " pushing for ID to be taught in schools". They are pushing to have
the philosophical assumptions of evolution and its errors and weaknesses
exposed, but not actually to teach ID theory.
Of course if exposing the philosophical assumptions of evolution and its
errors and weaknesses is defined as ID, then Wesley would be right. But I
do not define ID as merely negatively exposing the assumptions and errors
of evolution. I see ID also as a *positive* argument for design. That is not
AFAIK happening in any major way yet (i.e. initiated by the ID leadership),
but I look forward to it eventually happening in the early decades of the
21st century.
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 02:03:33 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
Subject: DI CRSC and pushing IDC in schools
WE>If anyone doubts that the DI CRSC has made it their policy
>to push teaching IDC concepts in secondary schools, have a
>look at
><http://www.discovery.org/crsc/CRSCdbEngine.php3?id=48>.
Thanks to Wesley for posting this. But again it is mainly a critique of
evolution. I do not see it as a full-blown positive argument for ID. It's
author, David DeWolf, is a professor of law, not one of ID's scientists or
philosophers. So he would be unlikely to take the lead in proposing a
scientific or philosophical argument for ID. Another law professor ,Phil
Johnson, would do that before him. DeWolf's forte is the *legal* side of
helping those teachers who are trying to correct evolution's errors and
expose its philosophical assumptions.
The title and objectives of the document make this clear.
=============================================================
Teaching the Origins Controversy:
A Guide for the Perplexed
David K. DeWolf
Special Discovery Institute Report
1999-08-20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
The decision of the Kansas Board of Education to change its approach to
teaching about the issue of biological origins has stimulated considerable
interest in the state of science, education, and law regarding how to teach
the origins controversy. At the Center for the Renewal of Science and
Culture, we are keenly interested in helping our schools do a better job of
presenting the wide range of scientific interest on this subject. The author
of this guide, David K. DeWolf, is Professor of Law at Gonzaga Law
School (Spokane, Washington). He is also a Fellow at the Center for the
Renewal of Science and Culture and coordinator of the CRSC's Teaching
Training Program.
This guide is designed to accomplish three things.
(1) The Scientific Landscape
To provide a brief overview of the current state of science on this topic so
that subsequent discussions are firmly grounded in fact.
(2) The Legal Landscape
To review the leading legal precedents and principles that provide
boundaries for schools and teachers in addressing this issue.
(3) Answering Common Objections
[...]
=============================================================
On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 10:27:49 -0700, Cliff Lundberg 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.
CL>What else is there to ID? Aside from the negative side, the criticism of
>the alternative naturalistic theory, what is the science within ID, analogous
>to the work done within evolutionary biology?
And as I have pointed out here before, ID in its modern form is still in its
infancy, dating probably from 1984 with the publication of Thaxton,
Bradley and Olsen's book, "The Mystery of Life's Origin".
ID's first task is to establish its philosophical base. Much work has been
done on this by Johnson, Behe and Dembski.
Having said that, some scientific work has been done by Thaxton, et al., in
the origin of life and by Behe in irreducible complexity. But it should not be
thought that materialism-naturalism somehow owns all the existing facts
and ID has to go off and find its own. Facts are public property and much
of ID's work will be in examining existing facts and separating out the
layers of materialistic interpretation.
Of course, those who are committed philosophical materialists will deny
that there *can* be any evidence for ID. As I responded to Wesley's post,
ID's task IMHO is not to convince this small, but influential minority (that
can't be done) but to work around them by focusing on the general public.
If materialists refuse to admit ID into science, then there probably will have
to be a split in science, with funding being taken off materialists and
granted to IDers.
>SJ>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.
CL>But what would be taught, other than that evolution is wrong? And how would
>the new model affect biological science in general?
I have just finished Paley's "Natural Theology" (1802). If Cliff hasn't read it
he ought to, for the *fantastic* layers of design in living things, that
materialistic-naturalistic science has largely forgone about but has always
been there.
I can now understand why Darwin and Dawkins who have both read Paley
and realised that mutations and natural selection must be gradual and tiny-
step-by-tiny-step. They realised there is no other way those fantastic layers
of design could have happened naturalistically.
But to answer Cliff's question more directly, I have just finished my first
unit "Origins & Evolution of Life" in my Biology degree. In the last 4
lectures the topic was "Evolution" I, II, III, and IV. The atheist lecturer
pulled out the stops and gave it to the poor kids both barrels, giving all the
best evidence for evolution he had. He explained he was doing this because
to many of the kids it was just an elective and this would be all they would
ever be taught about evolution at university level. At the end he started
criticising creationists and even Phil Johnson! I thought of this as "the late
heavy bombardment"! :-) He even asked those who dared to say they did
not believe in evolution to put up their hands, but of course no one
(including me) did. It would be the kiss of death on further good marks or
even passing.
I found it all quite interesting and enjoyable and it confirmed to me that the
core of evolution is just naturalistic philosophical prejudice (I assume that
the atheist lecturer was completely unaware of this). The same evidence is
better interpreted under the paradigm of a broad progressive creation. For
example, I posted this post (with some minor changes) on the other List I
am on:
================================================
[...]
From: "Stephen E. Jones" <sejones@iinet.net.au>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 07:00:42 +0800
Subject: Re: Nothing else was available?
[...]
I was reading my biology text yesterday in preparation for a lecture on
macroevolution and I noticed the following good example of how
Darwinists unconsciously assume that nothing else was available except the
`blind watchmaker' natural selection:
"Most biological structures have an evolutionary plasticity that
makes alternative functions possible. The term exaptation refers
to a structure that evolved in one context and became co-opted
for another function. This concept does not imply that a
structure somehow evolves in anticipation of future use.
Natural selection cannot predict the future and can only
improve a structure in the context of its current utility. The
lightweight, honeycombed bones of birds (see FIGURE 1.6) are
homologous to the bones of the earthbound ancestor of birds.
However, honeycombed bones could not have evolved in the
ancestors as an adaptation for upcoming flights. If light bones
predated flight, as is clearly indicated by the fossil record, then
they must have had some function on the ground The probable
ancestors of birds were agile, bipedal dinosaurs that also would
have benefited from a light frame. It is possible that winglike
forelimbs and feathers, which increased the surface area of
these forelimbs, were also coopted for flight after functioning in
some other capacity, such as social displays-in courtship, for
example. The first flights may have been only extended hops in
pursuit of prey or escape from a predator. Once flight itself
became an advantage, natural selection would have remodeled
feathers and wings to better fit their additional function."
(Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G., "Biology," 1999,
p.458).
When faced with clear evidence of forward planning (a line of reptiles
acquiring in advance on land the prerequisites for flight, like "honeycombed
bones"), which looks just like "a structure somehow evolves in anticipation
of future use", the materialistic-naturalistic philosophy controls the thinking
and it is simply dogmatically asserted that "Natural selection cannot predict
the future and can only improve a structure in the context of its current
utility."
That's true, but then who said it can *only* be "natural selection"?
Then a few hours later I happened to pick up and read the following by
Phil Johnson which had the answer:
"The flaw in that logic is that the purportedly scientific
statement was inferred from the philosophical conclusion rather
than the other way around. The empirical evidence in itself is
inadequate to prove the necessary creative power of natural
selection without a decisive boost from the philosophical
assumption that only unintelligent and purposeless processes
operated in nature before the evolution of intelligence
Darwinists know that natural selection created the animal
groups that sprang suddenly to life in the Cambrian rocks (to
pick a single example) not because observation supports this
conclusion but because naturalistic philosophy permits no
alternative. What else was available to do the job? Certainly not
God-because the whole point of positivistic science is to
explain the history of life without giving God a place in it. In
short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are incompatible is
not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection
to create. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblical to some,
or an unlikely method for God to use, but it is always possible
that God might do something that confounds our expectations.
The contradiction between Darwinism and theism is at a deeper
level. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation
for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to
naturalistic evolution is possible. To know that is to know that
God does not exist, or at least that God cannot create. To infer
that Darwinism is true because there is no creator God, and
then to interpret Darwinism as God's method of creating, is to
engage in self-contradiction." (Johnson P.E., "Darwinism and
Theism," in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or
Philosophy?," 1994, pp.46-47.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter4.html)
This is Johnson's great insight which deserves (and maybe one day will)
have its legitimate place in mainstream science. But it can never have its
place in *materialistic-naturalistic* science. Science must first be liberated
from its `Babylonian captivity' of materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
That is the prime task of ID's Wedge-to change the materialistic-naturalistic
way of thinking, or at least allow another way of thinking into science.
Until that is done, it does not matter how much evidence for ID there is.
There is more than enough evidence for ID in existing biology books,
without ID having to go off and find its own! That is not to say that ID
research like Mike Behe's irreducibly complex structures should not
continue-it should since it is legitimate science. But it will not (and can not)
make any difference to those whose minds are controlled by materialistic-
naturalistic philosophy.
================================================
>SJ>See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would be nothing wrong
>>with it being taught in schools.
CL>Criticism of evolutionary theory is itself part of evolutionary theory.
Agreed. But it is limited and suppressed. Much creationist/ID critiques of
evolution come from evolutionists themselves who have been marginalised
within evolutionary ranks. Even as powerful a figure as Gould is under
attack by the Darwinists (e.g. Maynard Smith, Dawkins, Dennett, etc) and
I predict that when Gould retires and eventually dies the Darwinists will
villify him and write him out of their history like they did to Goldschmidt.
And of course, one is not allowed to criticise evolution *itself*, i.e. maybe
it was not evolution but creation!
CL>Does
> ID go beyond this to comprise a science in itself, with observations and
>predictions of its own, unrelated to criticism of erroneous theories?
See above.
>SJ>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.
CL>Please, discuss real design vs apparent design, in your own words,
>without the conspiracy theory.
There is no "conspiracy theory". People who have the same general
philosophical assumptions think and act the same way without having to
coordinate it.
The fact that Cliff just assumes there *has* to be a "conspiracy theory" just
shows that he cannot conceive of there being any such thing as "real
design".
Whatever evidence I put forward for "real design" (and I have been putting
that evidence on almost a daily basis for over 5 years) philosophical
materialists like Cliff will just interpret it as "apparent design".
CL>And please specify whether 'Darwinism' precludes macroevolution.
Of course it doesn't. Darwinism doesn't preclude *anything*! Dawkins
called stasis (which is no evolution) "just an extreme case of ultra-slow
evolution (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," 1991, pp.245-246)".
Presumably he would call instantaneous creation "ultra-fast evolution"! :-)
But Darwinists are uncomfortable with the distinction between macro-
and micro-evolution and try to explain it away. For example, Mayr
tried to rename "macroevolution" as "transpecific evolution" and then
make out that it was "nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of
the events that take place within populations and species." (Mayr E.,
"Populations, Species and Evolution," 1974, p.351).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The problem faced by the evolutionary paleontologist is not unlike that of
the stock market analyst. Both the stock market record and the fossil
record are complex Markovian time series wherein causal interpretations
after the fact are often possible but the predictive value of theory is weak
to nonexistent. In fact, the technical market analyst probably has a better
record than the paleontologist. This does not disqualify evolutionary
theory; it simply illustrates the difficulty of applying any statistical theory to
actual cases." (Raup D.M., "Evolution and the Fossil Record", Science,
Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 05 2000 - 18:29:55 EDT