Below is an article that I found on another list by a biologist at Baylor
University. For Bertvan's edification, the author not only defines the word
"propaganda" but also "theory." Stephen should note that the author is a
Christian.
-----------------------
Cliff Hamrick <cliff_hamrick@BAYLOR.EDU> April 11, 2000
10:52:49 AM EDT
reiterations@META-LIST.ORG
Dr. Dembski's last submission to Metaviews has sparked in me the need to
respond to all the Creationist propaganda that I have been reading. First,
let me say that I do not use the words 'Creationist propaganda' lightly.
According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition
of propaganda is 'doctrines, ideas, arguments, facts, or allegations spread
by deliberate effort through any medium of communication in order to
further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause'. In Dr. Dembski's
article, 'Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame', he quoted Michael Ruse
out of context to bolster the opinion of the dogmatism of Darwinists,
misrepresented the ideas of Mickey Rowe (later writing a half apology) to
paint the picture of Darwinists as monsters, and only wrote half the truth
about Darwin's presentation of his Theory of Natural Selection (the truth
is that during Darwin's time there were few if any specialized scientific
journals, that Newton, Kepler, and Galileo also published books for the
public, and that Darwin and Wallace copresented the Theory of Natural
Selection to a group of fellow scientists). Given these facts, the lack of
any scientific data, philosophical or theological arguments, and his close
association with the Discovery Center, a think tank with a definite
socio-political agenda, I can only determine it's purpose to be to further
Dr. Dembski's cause and to damage an opposing cause, mainly Darwinism.
Dr. Dembski is certainly no scientist, he does not conduct scientific
research, and he does not write scientific articles.
According to his CV from his website, Dr. Dembski holds seven degrees,
though none of them are in the sciences. His closest degrees to science
are in mathematics. However, I know from my personal relations with
mathematicians that this is no real indication of a good understanding of
science. He sites his areas of specialization as foundations of
probability, philosophy of science, logic of conditionals, and philosophy
of religion. As far as I can tell from his CV, he has never actually
conducted any real scientific research. If this is true, then this means
that he has experience in talking about science without actually ever
conducting an experiment.
Dr. Dembski, despite his claims of intelligent design as a scientific
theory, is not conducting scientific research.
Science is based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses. I
will give the proponents of intelligent design credit for having a
well-thought out, perfectly logical hypothesis that the universe and the
living things in it are too specifically complex to have arisen by random
chance alone. I agree with the premise of this hypothesis and that has
bolstered my faith in a divine power. However, it is not scientific until
some means of testing that hypothesis can be shown. I have never seen,
though Dembski and cohorts profess to possess, any viable means of testing
this hypothesis. Dembski makes claims of a mathematical model based on
probability statistics that can sort out designed objects from undesigned
ones. However, I have never seen any articles that enumerate and explain
this model so that scientists can review it for it's scientific merit.
Dr. Dembski also is quite free with his use of the word 'theory'. As
someone who considers one of his areas of specialization as the philosophy
of science, Dr. Dembski should understand that a theory, in the scientific
sense, is a broad idea with implications reaching into many areas of
science and is based on a long list of scientific research supported by
data. Considering that one of the purposes of his work is "the promotion
and advancement of research involving the development and application of
mathematical tools from probability, complexity, information, stochastic
process and recursion theory. These tools will be used to analyze various
cosmological, physical, chemical and biological structures and processes,
with a view toward the empirical detection of design, if it is there to be
found", I have to say that the research on how to test the hypothesis has
yet to begin. So how can an untested hypothesis suddenly become a theory?
Dr. Dembski does not write scientific articles. In order for scientists
to gain acceptance of their research, they must publish their research in
peer reviewed journals. By the time a paper has been published in refereed
journal, a number of researchers and editors have read over the article and
determined its validity and integrity as scientific research. Also, in a
way, the organization that publishes the journal has declared that this is
the kind of research they wish to support and represent. In an interesting
study by George Gilchrist at the University of Washington in Seattle, he
performed a literature search in five computerized databases (BIOSIS,
Expanded Academic Index, Life Sciences Collection, Medline, and Science
Citation Index) that catalog scientific periodicals, books, and reports
from 1982-1997 using the keywords "intelligent design".
He found that "This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports
published over several years failed to discover a single instance of
biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's
diversity". I will take this one step further. I doubt that Dr. Dembski
or any proponent of intelligent design has ever even submitted an article
explaining intelligent design to any scientific journal. If they had, then
it would certainly be rejected for publication due to a lack of real
scientific merit.
This rejection of publication would lend credence to their belief in a vast
naturalistic conspiracy against them in the scientific community.
I have heard no one in the Intelligent Design movement cry 'foul' when
their papers on intelligent design are rejected by peer review scientific
journals. Finally, I would like to point out the hypocrisy in
Dr. Dembski's point, "Most scientific theories these days are initially
published in specialized journals or monographs, and are directed toward
experts assumed to possess considerable technical background. Not so
Darwin's theory. The locus classicus for Darwin's theory remains his
*Origin of Species*. In it Darwin took his case to the public."
Considering that Dembski, Johnson, Meyer, and Behe have all written books
on intelligent design for the general public and nothing for the scientific
community, isn't this a case, as we say in Texas, of 'the pot calling the
kettle black'?
I write this article not so much to disparage Dr. Dembski or other
Intelligent Design Creationists, but to point out that in many of their
writings they are attempting to pass off their ideas as real science
without actually using the scientific method used by professional
scientists around the world. It does not surprise me that Dembski spent so
much of his article discussing the public perception of Darwinian evolution
and intelligent design. The need to be perceived as legitimate,
professional scientists is important to the Intelligent Design
Creationists. In 'What every theologian should know about creation,
evolution and design', Dembski agrees with Johnson in that 'science is the
only universally valid form of knowledge within our culture'. When you
take a good look at the articles written by those in the intelligent design
cause, you see that most of what they write is a lamentation of the
dominant position of science in America. I have found few papers written
by the leaders of the intelligent design movement that were not mostly, if
not wholly, dedicated to this subject.
Unfortunately, for a vocal few who cannot live with the idea of Darwinian
evolution, the Intelligent Design Creationists have given them a seemingly
valid scientific alternative that is really a hollow philosophical exercise.
Finally, I would like to state that as an instructor in the Biology
department at Baylor University, I teach that all living things evolve,
that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection is our best explanation for how
things evolve, that there are flaws in his theory that need to be
addressed, and that it is possible to be a good Christian and a good
scientist, despite the Intelligent Design Creationists' attempts to
polarize the two ways of living.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 14 2000 - 18:27:15 EDT