Richard Colling: New paradigm needed: More intelligent 'intelligent design'

The latest issue of the "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" (Vol. 24, Numbers 3-4, May-Aug. 2004) is almost entirely devoted to discussing science-religion issues, mostly through many book reviews. I recommend it highly. Several books expressing views similar to those of Richard Colling are featured (though, unfortunately, his is not mentioned). It might be useful to create a bibliography of these books to share with various public officials grappling with teaching ID in schools.

Colling states that intelligent design is a new thing?

I wonder what planet it's new on. On earth it's been around at least since cavemen began carving little gods out of mammoth bones.

Maybe someone should whisper the name "William Paley" in Colling's ear.

Creation science, trying to find scientific justification for a literal interpretation of Genesis might be new. The notion of intelligent design is truly ancient.

Dave, stop confusing the concept of intelligent design, with the intelligent design movement whose arguments are based on the eliminative approaches of William Dembski.

Educate yourself. Do us and yourself a favor. If you had read Colling you would know that he is fully aware of the status of design in history.

Comprehesion requires a step up from reading, especially when you restrict yourself to abstracts or Cliff notes...

I own Colling's book as well as Polkinghorne's "the faith of a physicist"
Miller's Finding Darwin's God is another excellent book

Intelligent design is as old as William Paley, at least?

Someone should whisper "Charles Darwin" in Dave's ear.

Intelligent design, as understood by the ancients, was pretty much falsified by about 1830. In 1831 church authorities admitted it had failed in geology (famously in the speech by Rev. Adam Sedgwick), and in most other natural sciences. Darwin's nail-in-the-coffin was merely to have discovered one of the mechanisms by which the appearance of design arises among living things.

That science is no enemy of religious faith and that religious faith is no enemy of science is something which may be self evident to many of us but it may be far less self-evident to mainstream US. The recent creation/evolution flare-ups around the country show that there are still many people who incorrectly feel threatened by science.

This statement expresses a principle not everyone can agree on. The search for some common ground is admirable, but as they said in the 60s, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. In other words, there IS no middle ground. From the creationist perspective, *by definition* nothing can be neutral with respect to God. Either you glorify Him, or you oppose Him. Being neutral, not addressing God's Will one way or another, is NOT neutral, it is hostile. It omits God, which is ALWAYS hostile. There is no neutral.

wedgie

Are you appealing to any particular authority or just all authorities in general?

But accepting science is not a neutral position on the religious question.

Flint, you are right that a reconciliation of science and faith needs an effort from all sides. It's hard to insist on something by faith when science rejects the concept. In other words, young earth creationism or anti-evolutionism are positions which make reconciliation much harder. Your description of 'the creationist' is one for whom reconciliation is unlikely.
Yet there are many Christians who are reaching out and are willing to go where the evidence leads them. Richard Colling is one of these persons who is showing how religious faith and scientific rigor can live side by side. He realizes that the positions of some scientists and many creationists have polarized the discussion leading to a sense of distrust.
It's those Christians who are led to believe by fellow Christians quoting some extreme (atheistic) comments (often from prominent scientists) who need to understand that science need not be an enemy of their faith. And similarly their faith needs not be an enemy of science.
Getting this message out is not going to convince the extreme skeptics or those committed to hold a position that makes reconciliation unlikely. But it is a powerful message to those who are led to believe that science is teaching atheism when in fact science is very reconcilable with their faith.
Reducing the distrust among Christians and scientists alike about motivations can go a long way towards resolving the evolution/creationism debates. For that to happen both sides need to realize that there is a range of religious faith, some more amendable than others to what science is telling them. What Colling is showing is that a Christian need not fear science.
And that is a powerful message.

I'd have to respectfully but forcefully dissent from the view that "science is no enemy of religious faith".

I'm quite in favor of building bridges, but I think it's a mistake to try to lay the first stone in midair, halfway between the shores. Conciliatory NOMA-esque talk reminds me of statements coming from many different quarters immediately following September 11 to the effect that "Islam is a religion of peace." Just as Ibn Warraq was quick to respond that, while there may be moderate Muslims, Islam is not itself moderate, so I maintain that while there may be people who endeavour to adapt their religious faith to science, religious faith is not itself compatible with science. I don't think either camp is well served in the "peace negotiations" by papering over this fundamental fact.

Theist views of origins are compatible with biological science in the way that the view that putting a jesus-fish on your car increases gas mileage is compatible with automotive engineering. An engineer trying to explain that the data flatly fail to bear out this hypothesis is under no obligation to make some sui generis exception just for the jesusfishiologist by telling him "oh, don't worry, empirical science can never rule out religious belief!".

I've been in conversations where I've tried to defend variants of NOMA before. A theist being told his belief is the equivalent of the jesusfishiologist's can smell a sour deal when he's being offered one, and in my experience they always seem to pick up on the fact that they're getting the short end of the stick. Reconciliation is a fine and noble goal, but IMO the project will never get off the ground unless defenders of science can face up to the nature of the division and acknowledge it.

Science has proved that intelligent agents can interfere with natural evolution.

I have a genetically engineered rotten tomato ready to throw at anyone who disagrees.

DaveScot,

You're referring to Human intelligent agents, I presume? I'm not sure how that applies, positively or negatively, to Supernatural intelligent agents.

Of course intelligent agents can interfere with 'natural evolution' and your point being? Nobody is denying the possibility of intelligent design, it's just that the scientific evidence for ID is a bit, how shall I say this gently, eh lacking?...

I guess that Davescot was trying to say is that the process of rotting requires some supernatural intervention :-)

I can interfere with a run-away train as well, not the the train would notice...

Ouch

Plenty of scientists are Christians so it is an empirical fact that evolution and Christianity are compatible, at least for them. That said, I find it extraordinarily implausible to claim that science and religion are irrelevant to one another since there is also abundant evidence that believers have altered their beliefs in the face in the results of astronomy, geology, and biology and that those even those who have not altered their beliefs feel challenged by scientific results.

Debates about science and religion are exceedingly unmysterious if you don't have a dog in the hunt..Since religions are human affairs that contain little or no objective truth, they are bonelesss and can adopt almost any shape. Indeed, over the years they have. Just for this reason, science is not the enemy of "Christianity" or "Islam" but only of particular sets of ideas and practices that happen to be operating under these trade names at a given time.

PvM's personal note argued that science and religious faith are not enemies, and I tried to point out that it depends on the religious faith.

— Flint

Getting this message out is not going to convince the extreme skeptics or those committed to hold a position that makes reconciliation unlikely. But it is a powerful message to those who are led to believe that science is teaching atheism when in fact science is very reconcilable with their faith.

— WedgieWorld

I know there must be plenty of Sunday Christians, whose 'faith' doesn't cross their minds except insofar as they attend some nearby church each Sunday morning. They attend for a cocktail of various reasons - because their spouse goes, because they wish to expose their children to an essential part of cultural literacy, because the church is a good place to network with others for social or professional purposes, because it's the path of least resistance in some way (their boss expects it of them, or whatever).

And I suppose that the majority of these people have no idea what evolution is, except for the various cartoons showing the fish morphing into a human linearly, with some monkey- or ape-like phases depicted in the middle. For most, if they've been exposed to evolution at all, it was their church dissing it. Since they basically tune out the sermons they attend, they don't have any clearer grasp of the doctrinal specifics of their default denomination either. And this describes a class of people neither aware nor committed. Most of them are disinclined to believe scientific nonsense -- their religion is supposed to glorify reality, not deny it. Finally, these people each have a vote.

But surely these people shouldn't be considered creationists? If this is our target audience, I wonder if we have adopted effective tactics.

"Fueled by bold, but unsupportable atheistic pronouncements from a few scientists that science and evolution render God superfluous"

I really wish he'd actually provide some cites for this. The reality is, science and evolution clearly HAVE rendered God superfluous in a lot of the tasks that people believed that God played. There isn't any kittyfooting around this.

One may rightly object that 'true science' does not say anything about religious faith, one way or another.

In general, what PvM and Mike S. are arguing is that clear boundaries be drawn, 'separate magisteria' as Gould phrased it. This means that science can't make any statements judging moral rectitude (which it does not), and religion can't make any statements about natural history (which ALL religions do. Religion originated as a way of explaining the world around us, and isn't about to abandon this role).

Dawkins has argued (as could be expected) that religion MUST make statements about the natural world, because morality can't possibly exist in a vacuum - it must be based on something visible (and presumably admirable) in the real world to have any meaning at all. And the real world belongs to science. So Dawkins says Gould's clean boundaries cannot be drawn, lest religion be reduced to an imbecile staring at its navel and babbling in tongues.

In Dawkins' world, science gives us the facts and politics is how we exercise our preferences as informed by those facts, and religion is for the mental defectives. Dawkins is regarded as an extremist, but ducking his points doesn't make them go away.

In Dawkins' world, science gives us the facts and politics is how we exercise our preferences as informed by those facts

And the real world belongs to science. So Dawkins says Gould's clean boundaries cannot be drawn, lest religion be reduced to an imbecile staring at its navel and babbling in tongues

In looking at the progression of the ID movement, it seems to me that part of the PR problem that science is dealing with, and that is epitomized in many of these comments, is the approach to people who have beliefs that aren't scientific.

While there is a certain advantage to not beating around the bush when confronted with nonsense, it shouldn't be surprising that this is off-putting to many people. A better way to go about it is to view people who are confused about science as an opportunity to educate.

The main problem with the ID movement as far as science is concerned isn't that their ideas are wrong, it's that the proponents of ID refuse to participate in the scientific process. They won't play by the rules of science. The most effective approach to such people, I think, is to play the naif, or even the advocate. That is, saying, "Hey, that idea is interesting. Why don't you try to write it up in a journal article and get it out so that other scientists can hear about it?" Of course, at this point, it would be disingenuous to play that game with ID proponents, but it's still reasonable to keep the spirit: "It's impossible to judge the merits of ID until they engage the scientific community with more peer-reviewed research articles and the consensus opinion among biologists can be assessed." Or, considering the relatively poor science behind ID, it might be more appopriate to say, "I'm eager to see more ideas from the ID community. Unfortunately, right now, their research has not yet reached a point where scientists can test the validity of their hypotheses."

Anyway, it seems to me that, regardless of our individual opinions about religion, the science community is overwhelmingly inclusive. There is no reason why you can't test particular beliefs about the natural world using science; science merely asks that you be open to the fact that your belief may be wrong.

Since we seem to agree, I assume we aren't connecting. Creationist theology is that the "kinds" were created ex nihilo and as-is. Science either ratifies this doctrine, or science is wrong. PvM's personal note argued that science and religious faith are not enemies, and I tried to point out that it depends on the religious faith. Creationism makes scientific statements (statements about the nature and history of the objective universe), and science has determined that these statements are not correct. Within the creationist theology, science is wrong. Period. There is no possibility of coexistence. The two are enemies. Science can quite easily coexist with theistic evolution, the general view that in studing reality science is examining God's handiwork and figuring out how He chose to do things. This is possible because the theist doesn't know the details ahead of time; there is no a priori mold that scientific discoveries are required to fit. The argument has often been made that science is neutral with respect to God, neither accepting nor denying the supernatural, because the supernatural lies outside the competence and attentions of science. But to the creationists, science MUST recognize their God, and MUST interpret the evidence in support of the scientific doctrine already specified. There is no room for compromise on these requirements. To compromise in such a fundamental way is to throw open the door to doubt or reinterpretation of the entire Bible! This in turn opens up the possibility that their interpretations might be human rather than divine. And THAT means they might be wrong!.

The main problem with the ID movement as far as science is concerned isn't that their ideas are wrong ....

"It's impossible to judge the merits of ID until they engage the scientific community with more peer-reviewed research articles and the consensus opinion among biologists can be assessed."

Or, considering the relatively poor science behind ID, it might be more appopriate to say, "I'm eager to see more ideas from the ID community."

Great White Wonder: As I said, I was thinking about the problem in terms of the public's view of science, rather than what is good or bad science. It just seems to me that the ID movement has very effectively baited scientists into highlighting what many people believe to be bad about science: that as an institution it is elitist, it is exclusionary, and it pretends to be omniscient. It seems to me that science is strong enough to admit in public that there may be merits to ID that we are missing out on simply because the proponents of the theory have not taken the time to put it into a form that can be tested scientifically. Additionally, this highlights (to the public) that science is open to new ideas, on the condition that such ideas can be tested scientifically. It is also important to keep in mind that the goals should be different when scientists appear in public than when they appear before their peers. Most of the public is not particularly interested or informed enough to follow scientific arguments, regardless of how convincing we may believe them to be. However, the public will pick up on the fact that scientists are not a priori judgmental of non-scientific ideas, that such ideas are perfectly acceptable provided the proponents of the idea agree to back up their claims with evidence. I would argue that scientists in the public arena should be as open as possible while still being honest, and that openess is the quality noticeably lacking among many scientists in the public arena nowadays.

While there is a certain advantage to not beating around the bush when confronted with nonsense, it shouldn't be surprising that this is off-putting to many people. A better way to go about it is to view people who are confused about science as an opportunity to educate.

— freddy

openess is the quality noticeably lacking among many scientists in the public arena nowadays.

Sorry, my KCFS link is bad. This one should work:

Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS)

Unfortunately, many defenders of quality science education often focus too much on the religious motivations of the major players of the ID movement and put very little emphasis on the overall scientific understanding of the general public.

it pretends to be omniscient

— freddy

What level of scientific understanding is necessary to understand that a theory which purports to explain phenomenon by introducing hithero unknown "mysterious" alien beings with unprecedented powers is not scientific?

— Great White Wonder

Wonder's sarcasm, mocking of religious faith, and insistence that scientific knowledge is the only allowable form of knowledge in the public arena is, as freddy points out, precisely the kind of thing that convinces them they are right to dismiss the claims of science.

Calling those people ignorant bigots is not going to persuade them that they should listen when you claim that ID should not be taught in high school.

What does it mean to say that "if ignorance [is] coddled", then those who are not fundamentalists should "embrace the 2nd Amendment"?

Rather than just assume this is obvious and call people "rubes" for not recognizing ID for what it really is, shouldn't we put some of our focus on educating them about what actually qualifies as a scientific idea?

GWW,

We're trying to have a high-brow blog here. Please find a way to communicate your points without the potty talk.

I'm a science teacher myself, and I'm frustrated (and somewhat embarrassed) to admit that I don't know for sure. But wouldn't it be helpful to find out?

We would like to think that the unscientific nature of ID would be obvious to most people, but recent events in Dover, Grantsburg, and here in Kansas seem to suggest otherwise.

Rather than just assume this is obvious and call people "rubes" for not recognizing ID for what it really is, shouldn't we put some of our focus on educating them about what actually qualifies as a scientific idea?

I am also not trying to imply that people are not intelligent; some of the most vocal and active opponents of good science are very intelligent indeed. "But intelligence is a tool that is used to serve an end; and ends are not always chosen intelligently."

Sorry, I'm just feeling quotable tonight.

You say you don't know "for sure" why a "theory" which purports to explain phenomenon by introducing hithero unknown "mysterious" alien beings with unprecedented powers is not scientific. What part aren't you sure about?

— Great White Wonder

It's time to end this nonsense. These obnoxious frauds are playing for real. If you don't believe that scientists are entitled to have their most basic irrefutable conclusions presented without massaging from religious cranks, then my opinion is that you'd be better off teaching something else. Frankly, I suspect that you believe such massages are disgusting. When is the last time you said so in public?

— Great White Wonder

Rilke:

You seem to be quoting Larry Niven

Strawmen. I never mocked "religious faith"

— GWW

Christian fundamentalists (or whatever they choose to call themselves) are parasites whose only possible effect on society is to suck the life out of it...

Thought experiment for you: imagine that ID is mandated in school, gays go to prison, women who abort their babies are executed, and anti-fundamentalist Christian behavior is outlawed. Sound good to you? Do you think the US will remain the world's only superpower for very long? If so, would you care to explain why?

Also, feel free to explain where I've misrepresented fundamentalist Christians political positions.

No, but proving that, in fact, the people who peddle ID theory ARE ignorant fundamentalist lying bigots is undeniably a good thing...

Another point about discerning what is good science and what isn't. There is no question that the level of general scientific literacy in our society is woefully low. But there are many reasons for this, most of which are not due to religious fundamentalism (and some of which are the fault of the scientific community). But even for fairly educated people, it can be very difficult to discern good science from bad. Robert Park's book "Vodoo Science" makes this point effectively.

Even scientists can get taken in - look at the guy from Bell Labs who fabricated data. He got several publications in Science and Nature and only got caught because he directly replicated a figure. If he'd been slightly more clever he still might not have been found out. Of course he would have been found out eventually, but its silly to say that his fraud was obvious and/or easy to detect.

While it is true that ID is clearly bad science, that doesn't mean that it's always obvious what is good science and what is bad.

I don't know how much I have to add to the discussion, which has had the benefit of a number of thoughtful posts. I would like to expand on my earlier posts a little bit with some points that have been eluded to in other posts but not really spoken about explicitly.

First of all, I think that there is way too much emphasis on "winning" the debate against creationists. The debate over the scientific merit of creationism is won. While scientists are debating the scientific merit of creationism, creationists are winning the PR war by portraying science as intolerant and close-minded and insufficient.

So, in a local sense, the PR-debate over creationism can be won, I believe, by shifting the debate from a debate over ideologies, that is a debate of evolutionism vs. creationism or science vs. religion, to a debate over process. Debates over ideologies are provacative and polarizing, debates over process are boring and hard to follow. So, simply argue that science has no problem per se with ID, the problem right now with ID is that it hasn't gone through the process of engaging science through peer-reviewed articles and submissions at legitimate scientific conferences, etc. etc. We can then talk about how there are any number of ideas we as scientists are confronted with everyday, via email, phone calls, FedEx packages, etc. involving alien abduction, psychic healing, perpetual motion machines. All of these people believe that they deserve a place in science, but we simply don't have the time or incentive to evaluate all of these ideas, which is why there is a system in place to evaluate what ideas are scientifically viable, and that process is peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

In a broader sense, though, I don't believe that the debate over ID is really a problem for science. As several have mentioned already, there is an alarming amount of scientific illiteracy in the public nowadays, and, for the most part, people are remarkably uninterested in science. What the ID debate is giving scientists is the opportunity is to have a wide public forum. For the duration of the ID movement, scientists have been frustrated by the refusal of ID proponents to engage in anything like honest debate. These people merely repeat talking points that have been refuted many times over. I don't see why scientists should not feel similarly free from engaging in honest debate. While given the opportunity to have a wide public forum, and I should mention that I'm thinking primarily of talk radio, television talk shows, and campus debates, we should feel free to talk about what we think is cool and interesting about science and about why we think it is important for the public to be engaged in scientific thinking. There is no reason why we should allow IDers to define the terms of the discussion.

I'm sure you will split hairs and claim that you are talking about particular people, not about religious faith in general. But I'm afraid the distinction will be lost on most people whose sympathies lie with Christian fundamentalists.

It is precisely my point that you can demonstrate their ignorance and/or lying in a more effective manner than standing up and shouting "all fundamentalist Christians are ignorant rubes, and want to run this country like the Taliban ran Afghanistan!"

But even for fairly educated people, it can be very difficult to discern good science from bad.

simply argue that science has no problem per se with ID, the problem right now with ID is that it hasn't gone through the process of engaging science through peer-reviewed articles and submissions at legitimate scientific conferences, etc. etc.

GWW: If you want ideological purity, then your approach is the one to take. Certainly scientists have every right to get up on their high horse and scream "bullshit" at the purveyors of ID. But that is precisely not the way to "shut the jackasses up." As I keep saying, I am not concerned with the science debate. There is no science debate. I am concerned with the public debate. And the way to give ID proponents legitimacy is to act like what they are saying is a great threat to science, by using heated language and defensive arguments. If you want to make a case before the public, then you need to compromise, because not everybody agrees with you. You don't need to compromise on core principles, that is, you don't need to call ID a "theory" and you don't have to say that there is any sort of controversy in science over evolution, but you do have to admit that it is worth listening to what other people have to say.

Certainly scientists have every right to get up on their high horse and scream "bullshit" at the purveyors of ID.

I am not concerned with the science debate. There is no science debate. I am concerned with the public debate.

And the way to give ID proponents legitimacy is to act like what they are saying is a great threat to science, by using heated language and defensive arguments.

you do have to admit that it is worth listening to what other people have to say.

Rilke: You seem to be quoting Larry Niven

CRACKPOTS....Chris Mooney says we need to wake up: [In Salon,] Michelle Goldberg really gives you a feel for the anti-evolutionist juggernaut that's now preparing to bowl over the educational system, ending on this sobering note: "Evolution's allies might win the battle for Dover's biology classes, but they're losing America." Indeed, it's nearing high time for some serious alarmism about the ongoing anti-evolutionist campaign. Scientists need to wake up, fast --- those who haven't already. And then they need to start to fight back. That said, I'm not as pessimistic as Goldberg. Although Democratic politicians tend to be cowards on this subject, the elite media still have no love for creationism, and that's a powerful force to be reckoned with. Science's defenders should bring out national television crews, and let them interview the Bible-thumpers who come out for these battles on the local level. One of these types appears in Goldberg's article --- and I'm telling you, mainstream journalists are not ready to embrace people like this. I think Chris is right. As I've said before, the mainstream media really is biased toward showing what they're familiar with, and what they're mostly familar with is their fellow college educated social liberals. Unfortunately, this is a two-edged sword: lefty crackpots get a lot of press and end up convincing a lot of people that liberals are nuts, but conservative crackpots are mostly considered weird loons confined to their weird little rural communities and are therefore ignored. If conservative crackpots got half that press that folks who camp out in redwood trees got, ordinary Americans would probably be a lot more scared of them. It's time to put these guys front and center.

Another problem with ID and its links to fundamental Christianity is that it is dreadfully bad religion,too.

Think about it for a minute: The people who have complained since 1957 that evolution is evil because it is "godless," now profess to save us with a new brand of creationism whose most distinguishing feature is that it, too, is godless?

I am not suggesting that mocking these people as "suckers" is going to convince them that "ID theory" is "bad science." But they need to made aware that is the most disgusting fraud in the history of public education in this country, bar none.

— GWW

The failure of scientists and educators to speak aggressively against the ID movement and the shameless behavior of its proponents is a major weakness, in my opinion.

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by 'aggressive'.

Certainly scientists, as a group, are not especially saavy about public relations (come to think of it, your approach isn't especially saavy, either).

Perhaps they should be more proactive, but the evidence doesn't bear out the claim that science as a whole is in grave danger from the ID movement.

Now you sound like DaveScot, Mike S.

Wedgie (paraphrased) says

"Evidence of design is lacking."

Hardly. In every case when we observe something that looks like a purposely designed machine, and where we are able to determine whether it was designed or not, it has been found to be designed. One might thus rightly call it a law, not a theory, that machines are designed as every machine we know of where design can be determined is in fact designed.

Anyone that has at least a rudimentary understanding of the mechanism underlying protein construction via the DNA/ribosome combination and denies that it is a machine with a purpose is either not playing with a full deck or is simply dishonest. DNA/ribosome is essentially a computer controlled milling machine with the express purpose of milling all the parts required to construct duplicates of itself.

No similar machine has ever been observed that did not have design input. That doesn't prove that no complex machine ever came to be without design input but it does tend to put the burden of proof on the claim that design is not required.

Hardly. In every case when we observe something that looks like a purposely designed machine, and where we are able to determine whether it was designed or not, it has been found to be designed.

— DaveScot

DNA/ribosome is essentially a computer controlled milling machine with the express purpose of milling all the parts required to construct duplicates of itself.

Anyone that has at least a rudimentary understanding of the mechanism underlying protein construction via the DNA/ribosome combination and denies that it is a machine with a purpose is either not playing with a full deck or is simply dishonest. DNA/ribosome is essentially a computer controlled milling machine with the express purpose of milling all the parts required to construct duplicates of itself. No similar machine has ever been observed that did not have design input. That doesn't prove that no complex machine ever came to be without design input but it does tend to put the burden of proof on the claim that design is not required.

— DaveScot

But what would happen to this argument if we didn't have computer controlled milling machines (or other similar machines) for our comparison? What if such machines did not exist? Would you still infer design?

Well said Flint

Ditto.

Flint-

Thanks for so eloquently stating the point I was alluding to with my questions. I truly could not have put it better myself.

Sorry, I copied the wrong link. My previous questions were here.