Response to Luskin / Calvert story on "theistic evolution"

As has been repeatedly noted on this site, nothing about believing in evolution precludes belief in a god. That said, I think the IDists do correctly sense a real threat from Darwinism to their literal interpretation of the Bible. For while evolution does not make it impossible for there to BE a god, it does make it possible for there NOT to be one. Prior to the idea of natural selection, the "argument from design" would have been a hard one to answer. And how you gonna keep the kids down on the farm of literal belief in the Bible unless you use smoke and mirrors to create the illusion that evolution is "unproven" or at least "controversial"?

This is a good point - belief in God is going to have to find some rationale or justification other than an inability to explain the natural world, and that is a threat to some people.

Also, science has disproven, or made extremely unlikely, many religious beliefs: the idea that the wind is a breath of a spirit is no longer believed by any educated person; and the belief in a God that created the universe de novo six thousand years ago is likewise unsubstantiated by science. Scientific knowledged has honed our notions of what God might be like, and winnowed out many beliefs. This is something we have to live with, I think, but it also doesn't touch the essential elements of what religious belief is about.

It is interesting to me that ID movement will never realize that it is they themselves who are responsible for the eroding of theism for many people. One of the first things to cause people to examine their faith in a critical light is the realization that the people who are telling them to "just believe" in God are actively struggling to convince, intimidate or even trick them into "just believing" in other things which are demonstrably false.

Maybe the NCSE should collect signees of a statement unsupportive of naturalistic evolution from religionists and then put that on their websites. It could go something like this....

"The following promonent religious thinkers, ministers, and other various believers in Chrisitanity do not support the naturalistic foundations of evolutionary biology. Because these people are not naturalists and believe in a God who made the universe by non-natural intelligent design of some form, they question the validity of natural selection and random mutation, as well many other naturalistic mechanisms, to fully explain the observable biotic reality we live in. Some of theses signees reject evolutionary naturalism on purely religious grounds based primarily fully rational philosophical and theological arguments, while others believe that evolutionary naturalism not only has non-scientific objections, but also fails to be an adequate scienitific explanation. Some of these signees while they are themselves religionists, do not see any religious problems with evolutionary theory but nonetheless find evolutionary naturalism unconvincing for various rational reasons."

Then have some huge list of religionist signees for people to look through.

This of course would be dangerous because religious students (more than half of America's students?) viewing this list might respond with something like...

"Wow, look... there's my minister and a thousand other ministers. I believe in God and want to think about how he made the natural world in a systematic and rational way. Man I better look into these questions and not just accept N.O.M.A. or some form of theistic evolutionary naturalism."

While the response of a religious student to a list of ministers supporting evolution goes something like this...

"Ohh.... Well I had wondered whether or not I should think about my religious beliefs in relation with my science education but, lookie here, I don't have to think about this at all, for religion endorses evolution anyways, and there must not really be any controversy between evolutionary naturalism and Chrisitanity. Good thing. It would suck to have to think about all this critically. Phew"

T. Russ

And, just so you PT thought policeman know.... I don't think ID should be taught to highschool students as part of their science education, and I'n not here saying anything about ID, or Evolution not being an adequate theory. Just making a point for the sake of pete.

What point ARE you making T Russ?

wow,... fast reading.

The point here is simple. Getting a list of religionists to endorce evolutionary naturalism on a website designed to help students understand evolution is misleading because the website fails to mention that many religionists do not endorse evolution for various thoughful reasons. In my humble opinion, I believe students should be encourage to work out their religious and scientific understands of reality. Therefore I think it would be better to reveal to them that a controversy between their religious teachers and their scientific teachers exists. That way they don't just take the easy way out and accept N.O.M.A. without ever thinking about it.

I have seen this intellectual shortcoming occur with many religious students in the university. I'll meet a freshmen who comes into college as a creationists or anti-evolutionists of some kind for religious reasons and then after some time of dealling with the stigam and pressure of not believing in evolution they'll here about somebody prominent who is a religionists (and boy ohh boy are there ever many different types of these) who say that evolution and religion aren't in any conflict at all. Then viola! The student can aleve themself of social discomfort and never really think much about the subject.

Getting a list of religionists to endorce evolutionary naturalism

T. Russ, very little controversy exists in the UK, where church and state are not separate. Darwin is even buried in Westminster Abbey (and appears on the back of a £10 note)!

Theistic evolutionists come in for a bashing from the ID camp because we are what you fear the most, a group of people who accept God as the creator, but don't believe that science is capable of testing this fact. Think about it, how are you supposed to test for a supreme deity, whose possible actions are virtually limitless? Also, by implication, if you sit there and point to "designed" objects as some kind of measure of God, then you are just fodder to atheists who will point out objects that look to be poorly designed and insist that God must be incompetent. Your witness is just plain bankrupt.

But of course, we're just stupid and deluded right? We haven't thought through out position properly I am told. And don't forget the name calling! I have been called many things in my time, "backslider", "atheist", "naturalist", "worldly", "satanist"(!), etc. All by supposedly good Christian folk who just can't seem to stop worshipping the Bible as an idol and poisoning their kids with their bibliolatry. Their kids get made fun of at college because they hold ludicrous strawman positions on biology. I've even see kids lose their faith over a comparative theology class, let alone learning about what evolution really entails. Such is the blinkered way they have been brought up, were any alternative interpretation of any Bible passage is deemed as grounds for a toasting!

From what I've seen, most people who deny evolution do it because they have elevated their personal, literalistic Biblical interpretation to a level of infallibility. They simply *cannot* be wrong, it *must* be evolution (or anyone else's interpretations) that are in error. Have you ever considered that your theology may be mistaken?

Andrew

The point here is simple. Getting a list of religionists to endorce evolutionary naturalism on a website designed to help students understand evolution is misleading because the website fails to mention that many religionists do not endorse evolution for various thoughful reasons. In my humble opinion, I believe students should be encourage to work out their religious and scientific understands of reality. Therefore I think it would be better to reveal to them that a controversy between their religious teachers and their scientific teachers exists. That way they don't just take the easy way out and accept N.O.M.A. without ever thinking about it.

And the *insert any deity, theology* said "let there be light (knowledge)and darkness (ignorance)was banished".

Its all in the interpretation.

There is so much the ID crowd are missing out on by not investigating
myth in non oedipal manner.

Oh and I'm an atheist.

"Then viola!"

Is this the theory of intelligent orchestration?

Getting a list of religionists to endorce evolutionary naturalism

on a website designed to help students understand evolution is misleading because the website fails to mention that many religionists do not endorse evolution for various thoughful reasons.

I don't think ID should be taught to highschool students as part of their science education, and I'n not here saying anything about ID, or Evolution not being an adequate theory.

Why do violists smile when they play?
Because ignorance is bliss and what they don't know can't hurt them.

the necessarily conflate two distinct things: informing people (including students) about people's beliefs, the existence of which disproves the basic premise of the Wedge, on the one hand, and asserting or teaching that some particular religious beliefs are true. For them, talking about a religious perspective and proselytizing for it are synonymous, it seems.

— Jack Krebs

Keep in mind that there are many problems with a literal interpretation of the Bible before you even get into science. When you do come to scientific issues, Christian geologists found that the earth was millions of years old before evolution became known.

The Wedge which Jack mentioned holds that all science, not just biology, must be theodized.

For Russ: The Clergy Letter Project.

Isn't it a bit dimbulbish to think that you honor the Creator by disbelieving the creation?

That Calvert paper is a very good example of how logic can be used to confidently arrive at the wrong answer. Does he really think that because he's talked to some scientists whose acceptance of theistic evolution is based on faulty thinking, it necessarily follows that all scientists fall into this category?

This seems to be another case of "allow me to know you better than you know yourself." I come across this attitude all the time from religiously motivated pro-lifers in discussions about abortion, where they can't or won't believe that pro-choicers really mean what they say, and this business about rationalising away theistic evolution is yet another example. These people do seem to have a bit of trouble with the notion of looking at beliefs objectively and accepting that other people have their own point of view. So far his argument seems to be "This is what he says he believes. I think his belief is wrong. Therefore it is wrong. If it's objectively wrong, he must know he's wrong. Therefore he's lying about his belief and I can discount what he says and substitute what I really know he means." Arg.

Jack, your link to the slides does not work.

"During Pedro Irigonegaray's closing statement at the Kansas hearings in May, we made the point that there are many Christians (and other theists) who accept evolution. Such theists, we pointed out, do not accept the argument put forth by ID leader John Calvert that "methodological naturalism" (i.e., science) implies "philosophical naturalism" (i.e., materialism and atheism) because they believe that God works through natural causes. Such theists accept that science is a legitimate and accurate use of our God-given reason to investigate the physical world, and that God's presence in the natural world will manifest as a logically consistent world to our senses."

If God works through natural causes then they are not, properly speaking, "natural" causes at all. Does it not also follow, that "nature" is identical with "Creation" on this view, and so theistic evolution is, properly speaking, an example of "methodological creationism"?

Well, First off I was only suggesting another list which fully illustrates the actual state of things. I never said anything fundie at all. But as is always the case, here at PT if you attempt to add some thought to an issue that isn't status quo with the group, you are assumed to be some kind of fundie who rejects evolution for religious anti-rational reasons. And here I sit as always reading the comments of jokes like Rev Lenny thinking to myself, "this guy has no idea what I actually think, but thinks he does." I'm not BS-ing anybody. I think ID (that is the intellectual question of whether design has occure throughout biotic history, not the "movement") should be discussed at the highest levels of academia and then filter down to the schools if it has any merit. And, If you really are concerned with my personal religious understanding of evolution go read some Asa Gray. He and I are pretty tight.

Also:

Evolutionary naturalism: See below... (who doesn't know what this means?) Well, for those who actually want to know, check out

Boller, Peter .F. 1969. American Thought in Transition: The Impact of Evolutionary Naturalism, 1865-1900. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Evolutionary Naturalism: the Philosophical Foundations of Humanism
Presented by Pat Duffy Hutcheon to the January, 1997 meeting of the British Columbia Humanist Association
http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/humanist%20articles/Evolutionary%20Naturalism.htm

Callebaut, W./Stotz, K. 1998. Lean evolutionary epistemology. Evolution and Cognition 4: 11---36.

Collier, J.D./Stingel, M. 1993. Evolutionary naturalism and the objectivity of morality. Biology and Philosophy 8(000603): 47---60.

Morgan, C.L. 1923. Emergent Evolution. New York: Henry Holt.

Sellars, R.W. 1969. Evolutionary Naturalism. New York: Russell and Russell.

Ex-fundie: I applaud you. The discussion of religious topics without the desire to win converts is very possible and should be done frequently. For, Religion is a major component of the observable world is it not. To dismiss intellectual discussions concerning the existence and attributes of God, or God's relation to the natural world, is reckless stupidity. Truncate your thought if you want to. But damnit if you think you are really thinking critically about the world you may live in. I think philosophical and religious discourse and its relationship to science, society, culture, whatever, should never be discouraged. (Even if God does not exist or the Deists have it right.)

Pete, Thanks for the link to the clergy project. Were I a member of the clergy, I might consider signing off on 95% of the statement.

Religion is a major component of the observable world is it not. To dismiss intellectual discussions concerning the existence and attributes of God, or God's relation to the natural world, is reckless stupidity...I think philosophical and religious discourse and its relationship to science, society, culture, whatever, should never be discouraged.

I'm not BS-ing anybody. I think ID (that is the intellectual question of whether design has occure throughout biotic history, not the "movement") should be discussed at the highest levels of academia and then filter down to the schools if it has any merit.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank asked: "What the hell is 'evolutionary naturalism'? Is this the latest fundie code word for 'atheism'?"

It's certainly a code word that points toward atheism, but doesn't quite mean it.

Here's how it works, on Dembski's site now is a well mined quote from from Barbara Forrest:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/402

Dembski doesn't even bother to comment on it himself. Barbara Forrest is simply quoted saying this:

"We have established scientifically some disquieting facts: (1) human beings have evolved from nonhuman life forms, meaning that (2) at one time we did not exist, and that (3) according to paleontological and astronomical evidence, at some time in the future we shall cease to exist. Furthermore, from a scientific standpoint, there is no discernible reason that we had to evolve in the first place, and there is no guarantee that we shall continue to evolve successfully; more hominid species have become extinct than have survived. The price of such knowledge has been the gnawing question of whether human existence has genuine meaning if it was constructed with cranes rather than supported by skyhooks, as Daniel Dennett says.

The problem of meaning is easily resolved for those who embrace a preconstructed system of meaning such as religion. However, religion cannot help us find meaning in any honest sense unless it can assimilate the truth about where human beings have come from, and the only real knowledge we have about where we came from we have acquired through science."

The quote above can be called, by the IDers, an example of "evolutionary naturalism," "atheism," "metaphysical naturalism," "infidel philosophy," "Darwinism," "Dawkinism" and "humanism."

Those are all different things but the one thing they have common is they are in some far away land where IDers don't see the difference and can only point in that general direction.

You will see if you read the comments, few people on Dembski's site think that people evolved from an ape.

Calvert's and Luskin's and the Caldwells' argument boils down to this: 'True religious people don't put any stock in evolution, and anyone who does is not truly religious and will burn in hell.'

Then Caldwell has the gall to claim that's the what Berkeley and NCSE do, while he is defending academic freedom.

Condemnation masked as toleration -- only, oddly, it seems masked only to people like Calvert, Luskin and the Caldwells. The would-be emperor's new iron fist of religious discipline.

Rather Caldwell is alleging that when the government specifically suggests to students that "religion need not conflict with evolution," that the government is telling students what their religious beliefs should be. According to Caldwell, this form of telling students how their religious beliefs should deal with evolution constitutes impermissible religious endorsement on the part of the government.

[I]t is educationally appropriate to highlight the beliefs of Christians and other theists who accept evolution in order to combat the mistaken notion that Christians can't accept evolution....

— Jack Krebs

Flint:

"should religious doctrine be presented in 9th grade science classes as scientific truth?"

Nope. Religion should not be taught in any form in 9th grade science classes. Also, It might be good if we didn't teach or describe anything as "scientific TRUTH" per say.

"I suggest that discussion of the existence and nature of a wide variety of gods is probably worthwhile, for a wide variety of reasons. 9th grade science class is neither the time nor the place for such discussions to be helpful to anyone."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Steve S.:

I don't think that making statements about the ID movement counts as intellectual discussion of the question of design in nature. I do think that Dembski writing a paper and Elsberry then critiquing it does count. That is what needs to go on. I myself, don't think it has been succesful enough to filter down. Maybe it never will. However, over the last 2500 years it has been discussed and at various times taught to young children.

Even though the scientific establishment of Galileo's time made statements about his ideas having no merit they still eventually won the day in actual discussion. Statements by "scientific establishments" have meant very little throughout history.

I like the link to Demski's weblog. I urge any and all of you to go over and register. I did. I will continually try to post rebuts to all the silly posts people make and to the articles listed.

I like the link to Demski's weblog. I urge any and all of you to go over and register. I did. I will continually try to post rebuts to all the silly posts people make and to the articles listed.

Theistic evolution offers great advantages. You don't have to be angry with science.

Well, First off I was only suggesting another list which fully illustrates the actual state of things. I never said anything fundie at all.

I think ID (that is the intellectual question of whether design has occure throughout biotic history, not the "movement") should be discussed at the highest levels of academia and then filter down to the schools if it has any merit.

I do think that Dembski writing a paper and Elsberry then critiquing it does count. That is what needs to go on.

Steve S.: I don't think that making statements about the ID movement counts as intellectual discussion of the question of design in nature.

However, there is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred. ... the lack of scientific warrant for so-called 'intelligent design theory' makes it improper to include as a part of science education. ...

Even though the scientific establishment of Galileo's time made statements about his ideas having no merit they still eventually won the day in actual discussion.

Pseudoscientists also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too, just as Galileo was.

Statements by "scientific establishments" have meant very little throughout history

As has been repeatedly noted on this site, nothing about believing in evolution precludes belief in a god. That said, I think the IDists do correctly sense a real threat from Darwinism to their literal interpretation of the Bible. For while evolution does not make it impossible for there to BE a god, it does make it possible for there NOT to be one. Prior to the idea of natural selection, the "argument from design" would have been a hard one to answer. And how you gonna keep the kids down on the farm of literal belief in the Bible unless you use smoke and mirrors to create the illusion that evolution is "unproven" or at least "controversial"?

Mtthew, you already left your lame-ass link on another recent thread, and you've already been challenged there to provide some real evidence for your contentions.

We already suspect you're an idiot.

Try not to display yourself as a boorish and inconsiderate idiot by going from thread to thread, leaving the same link over and over again, like some poor drooler caught in a behavioral fugue.

You will see if you read the comments, few people on Dembski's site think that people evolved from an ape

Unfortunately, it's a very weak theory as far as actually accounting for evolution,

Steve S, I'm not a "pseudoscientist" as you seem to argue that I am, because of my referencing the gallileo affair. In fact, I'm no scienitist at all. Not even a fake one. But as someone who studies the history of science academically and someone who understands the logic of an argument, I simply stated that statements from scientific establishments in response to new and contradictory ideas to the current paradigm of thought, mean jackcrap. I then noted the Galileo affair as an example. Yes. Amazingly, the gallileo affair did occur, and yes Aristotelian natural philosophers made rash statements about Galileo's theories. I guess I could have sighted other statements from groups of scientists who were anti-evolutionists during Darwin's time that made simple statements against his theory in hopes of disuading people from believing it... but, regardless of what Richard Owen and his cronies might have stated about the fixity of species, it just isn't true.

I really wish that some of you were able to understand the complexities of this debate or were at least able to read and understand at least those interlocutors who fall somewhere in the middle of things. Oh well...

... and mathew continues his innapropriate use of creationist buzzwords..

deep faith
wishful thinking
teleological
prejudices of the current paradigm
and of course:

reductionist materialists

*sigh*. use a mirror sometime, matt.

Matthew, Your not an idiot....you're just kinda weird. Good luck at PT buddy.

I really wish that some of you were able to understand the complexities of this debate or were at least able to read and understand at least those interlocutors who fall somewhere in the middle of things

Um. GIven that this "debate" depends on the evidence and the debate THERE is NOT complex...I fail to understand interlocuters who claim to be in the middle.

You don't fall in the middle of things. You're a creationist with terrible spelling.

I fail to understand interlocuters who claim to be in the middle.

Matt wrote "It's all about removing any sort of teleological challenge to the individual human ego as supreme. And as such, it's a theory which simply must be true because it accounts for the prejudices of the current paradigm du jour."

People who misunderstand evolution often do misinterpret it to mean humans are supreme - the logical, inevitable culmination that evolution has been "working" toward. In this view, we're perfection achieved, a done deal. In fact, of course, we're a point on a continuum, not a final product. Evolution continues to operate. And "the fittest" by no means always means the smartest. I kayak a lot on the outer coast of BC. If I were to capsize in the winter waters, even with my wet suit on, I'd have shorter survival prospects than the "lower" creatures around me - the seals, the whales, even the seaweed and barnacles would be "fitter" than I would. So properly understood, evolution is actually quite a humbling concept. Unlike, for example, the notion that a god created Earth especially for man, and gave him Dominion over it and all the creatures on it...

"William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His "law of conservation of information" represents a revolutionary breakthrough." Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

In fact, I think I'm going to write the Information Theory Society and ask them why they don't devote any space to the "Isaac Newton of Information Theory", William Dembski.

please let us know if they actually respond; I'd be curious to know just how much satire they can handle in a response.

Dear Mr. McLaughlin: I was browsing the ITSOC website today and was shocked by what I saw. I saw lots of stuff about some guy named "Claude Shannon", but not a single mention of William Dembski. As Mr. Dembski has been called "The Isaac Newton of Information Theory", you can imagine my surprise. I humbly ask you for an explanation of this oversight. thanks, Steve Story ps--do I have your permission to quote your reply? Other friends on the internet are curious about this question.

hmm. i think you would have been better served if you supplied a link to the article that used the term to describe dembski; my bet is that Dr. McLaughlin hasn't even heard of him, and will be most perplexed by your request. I'll keep my fingers crossed, tho. :)

I don't know. I think he might have heard it. Last year an IT grad student emailed me for the citation of the quote, after he saw it in a post. He was going to pass it around the department for laughs. The quote is years old, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in IT has heard it by now.

Re "It is interesting to me that ID movement will never realize that it is they themselves who are responsible for the eroding of theism for many people."

Yep. They try to convince people, esp. perhaps other Christians, that they have to choose either relition or science. Well, if one convinces a Christian that they have to choose one or the other, this just might result in: that person choosing... one or the other. One choice makes no difference in the number of Christains left; the other reduces it. And this effort is helping their support base... how?

Henry

Steve S wrote:
"You don't fall in the middle of things. You're a creationist with terrible spelling."

1.) I fall in the middle of things because I am not wholly convinced that design is "scientifically" detectable in the way that Dembski and Behe thinks it is and do not think it should be taught in middle or high school. (However, I do think they are at least on to something worthy of serious thought and discussion. While their ideas are interesting and might just be heading in the right direction I do not think they are the end all be all of design theory. I share their conviction, which many of their theistic opponents share, that the world is designed and made by God. But I do not share their convictions concerning using ID as Christian apologetics in the culture war. I believe in God because of the awesome Cabernet I had last night, not because long sequences of amino acids form functioning proteins which work along side other proteins to unwind genetic information, or because bacteria have cool motor tails, etc etc etc... I also probably have a much more open philosophy of science and religion when it comes to God employing evolutionary mechanisms to design the world. Perhaps one day I will join the blogosphere and write up a profile with all my beliefs and views on a blog of my own so that I will stop being so misunderstood and thus misinterpreted. If your well read in the areas that I am then you can understand my views by the following statements.

As I posted somewhere earlier, my interpretation of evolution is akin to Asa Gray's. My take on science and religion is much like John Polkinghorne's. My views of science education are in line with Ed Larson and Steve Fuller's. My philosophy of science is akin to William Whewell's, but also Larry Laudan's. My philosophy of history is very Kuhnian, my adherence to scientific realism is very much like Philip Kitcher's. And my understanding of Christianity is akin to Houston Smith and CS Lewis's.

2.) Sory my sppeling is ocasionaly poore. i reelise that thiz refootes my argyouments.

Actually, I really ought to read back over my posts and make some spelling as well as grammatical corrections before I push the post button. I'm always on the rush to do other things. But thanks Steve.

Steve S also wrote:
"T russ should just accept that he (?, yes, i am a male) is delusional and move on."

Good argument buddy.

Why should science be in the position of teaching religious opinions?

Most Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations have accepted evolution as the way God brought the world about, and this is also true of the theology of all but the most conservative Jews. Although it would be inappropriate for a teacherto encourage students towards or against any religious view, it is appropriate to inform them, in a comparative sense, of the existence of more than one religious perspective on creation and evolution.

Perhaps one day I will join the blogosphere and write up a profile with all my beliefs and views on a blog of my own so that I will stop being so misunderstood and thus misinterpreted.

2.) Sory my sppeling is ocasionaly poore. i reelise that thiz refootes my argyouments.

Steve S also wrote: "T russ should just accept that he (?, yes, i am a male) is delusional and move on." Good argument buddy.

I'm just waiting around for a reply from Steven W. McLaughlin. I'd like to know why the Information Theory Society has so many resources on some "Claude Shannon" dude. Never heard of him. I'd rather read about "The Isaac Newton of Information Theory", obviously. He better explain himself.

Yeah, well. That Shannon dude did his dissertation in some backwater discipline like ... well ... population genetics, so what can you expect? Nothing a philosopher would consider worth being the Fig Newton of. Trust the information theorists to be bamboozled by Shannon's bafflegab and ignore the Isaac whatsisname of info theory.

RBH

Sorry for wrongly attributing that quote to Steve S. I meant to type Sir ToeJam but failed to do so. Honest mistake I hope.

Anyways,... you guys are hilarious. The thoughtful discussions here at PT are blessed with your.... Wait a second, you guys are couple of jokes.

But seriously, my experience and reasonable assessment of your ability (or maybe willingness) to discourse with people holding views different from your own, leads me to conclude that you guys are just a couple of childish punks.

I hope it's okay with PT bloggers that I hit back every once in a while. All in good fun of course. :)

Krebs wrote "As has been made abundantly clear in Kansas, for the IDists either you admit the possibility of supernatural design into science or you are in league with the dreaded human secularists whose beliefs are responsible for the sorry state of modern civilization."

After debating a number of people on the PBS NOW! forum on politics, replace any religious group for "IDists" and any topic such as "peace" or "non-violence" based on the Beatitudes, and no matter the extent of the historic religious belief and Jesus quotes in response to Old Testament quotes, the end result is the accusation of "you are a Christian hating secular humanists indoctrinated by the humanist manifesto and the liberal elites, and you know it."

(Actually, that was just one of them, others came back with "you are a traitor", "you love terrorists", "Stalin/Castro/Hitler is your hero", etc.)

I have tried the "you believe in ID? Like in Kubric/Clarks 2001? Or is it more like the X Files?" but that evokes the other response to arguments that trap them in a contradiction: silence. I would love to ask queries about all the scifi plots of 1950/60s Clark/Asimov et al, that speculate on "space alien creators", and then get into the X Files, Twilight Zone, etc., in a trial setting where they are required to answer. I would suggest that these frequent themes are evidence of alien abductions, genetic memories, of projected images from our creators, and then ask them to refute them or acknowledge the validity of this explanation of the identity of an Intelligent Designer.

I believe that firmly associating space aliens with ID would basically kill off that movement. And one reference for constructing the space alien explanation would be Chariots of the Gods, in which the "science" is just as valid as that of ID: the only possible way to fit boulders together as tightly as they are in the Inca cities is with technology far in advance of even 21st century technology - must be space aliens.

leads me to conclude that you guys are just a couple of childish punks

Here, russ:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=5752

now fit your statements into that format. i think you will find they fit quite well.

can you self analyze?

Jason wrote: "I will continually try to post rebuts to all the silly posts people make and to the articles listed."

Let us know when you get censored. When it happens, post here what Dembski censored.

In fact, I'm no scienitist at all.

I really wish that some of you were able to understand the complexities of this debate or were at least able to read and understand at least those interlocutors who fall somewhere in the middle of things. Oh well...

Why should science be in the position of teaching religious opinions?

Good question. Perhaps you could take it up with Eugenie Scott who seems to not have any problem advising teachers on how talk to their students about the proper way to fit religious opinions into the science class. You can read her comments here. Apparently its okay to talk about religion in science class, as long as its taught the "right" way and with the "correct" interpretations and so forth.

Hi T Russ,

Please read carefully what some people have written to you. What these writings have shown is that the vast majority of scientists have read, understood, and rejected ID creationism on the basis of the evidence. The ideas and claims of IDC have been discussed at the highest possible levels, and investigated thoroughly. They have been found to be unscientific and unrepresentative of reality.

Please don't get the idea that this is a manifestation of conflicting paradigms, or the suppression/rejection of new ideas by an old establishment. There are of course many examples in which the conflict of paradigms and the suppression/rejection of the new by the old occur, and your Gallileo example was a good one for this. This is not the case here. Let me explain why:

Firstly, and quite importantly, things have moved on from Gallileo's time! We are dealing with very different "establishments". I doubt I need to delve into the history of this.

Secondly, the principle objection to Gallileo was religiously based. Given the reverse situation applies to IDC and its vacuous carpings about evolutionary biology (i.e. in Gallileo's case he was doing science and the opposition was religious. In the IDC case, the "opposition" is scientific and the IDCists are promoting a religious claim) the irony of your choice of example should be obvious! It really is important to hammer this home. There is no scientific basis for the claims of IDC. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Sweet F.......anny Adams! It is very important you understand this. Also, please do not take my word, or anyone else's word for this, it is quite possible to find this out for yourself. In fact I would very strongly encourage you to do so.

Thirdly, challenges to the scientific "establishment" are welcome. Challenge away. That's what every scientist on the face of the planet is doing, and dreams of suceeding at. It's pretty hard to have an "establishment" that is ever evolving, ever moving and never established. The one caveat to this is that your challenge must be at least as well supported as that which it is challenging. It must not only do its own job, but the job of the thing it replaces.

Which brings me finally to: Fourthly, "They laughed at Gallileo. They laughed at Columbus. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.". This is very, VERY important to remember. Yes, big revolutions and massive challenges appear to occur. Yes, they are sometimes successful. The reason they are successful is they do the job better than the previous thing on the basis of the evidence. That really is the key: evidence. IDC has none. None that is scientific. It has reems of handwaving and anecdote and unsupported philosophising, but no actual supporting reliable, reproducible evidence. Not only that, it doesn't do the job it sets out to do, and fails to even do the job the thing it is designed to replace does. IDC, to use a colloquial phrase, sucks donkey balls.

Historians and philosophers of science tend to focus these "paradigm shifts", these "big" revolutions and challenges. For what reasons they do this, I shall not say, but they are wrong, ask any working scientist (of which I am an example!). Science proceeds incrementally. There are myriad people working on similar problems in science. Often even ostensibly unrelated ideas and research cuase new ideas in one's own field. Even the commonly touted "revolutions" of Darwin and Einstein were supported by many also-rans. Many people who had similar ideas but never quite hit the nail on the head. By the way, John Gribbin's "Science: A History" is a good, basic and emminently readable introduction to this.

Why do I point this out? Well, because often people like to promote their ideas as being the next new big thing. What a previous poster referred to as a common symptom of pseudoscientists. Now I am not accusing you of being a pseudoscientist, or a creationist, or an anything, so please avoid any leaps for high horses! ID is a popular idea in the media at the moment. The media like to present issues as conflicts, its sexy news, it mimics the "talking heads" appraoch of much political debate, and it involves (dare I say) minimal research. This absolutely, catagorically does not work with matters scientific. The clash between evolutionary biology and IDC is being falsely presented as a clash of rough equals (in terms of their scientific nature and merit). This is palpably false. Firstly, there is no "clash", just a whimper and squelch as actual science steamrollers over IDC. Secondly, the ideas contained in IDC are ancient, and were well refuted, long ago. It is only the ignorance of how science works and the previous failings of the teleological basis of IDC that keeps it going. The media is quite literally playing into the hands of the IDCists.

Now there's a "conspiracy" for you! It isn't the poor IDCists who are being oppressed by them 'orrible scientificarious orthodoxists. It's those innocent scientists being attacked by vicious charlatans manipulating the courts and media into acting on a non existant controversy. Scary!

Oh and a quick P.S. The interlocutors who fall in the middle of things are falling prey to the same problems the media is. There is no middle. IDC lost the argument a VERY long time ago. The fence sitting smugness of people who claim to be "balanced" and "fair" misses the point entirely. Reality does not conform to opinioned niceties. Jump out of a high window if you doubt me on this. My reality based science opinion is that you will fall at a specific rate, and probably injure yourself or die. The contrary opinion that you will float is demonstrably false. The fence sitting position is equally false because you won't hover to earth unharmed, nor will your rate of descent be other than can be predicted by science. This is the problem for politics/social science majors and their occasionally postmodern buddies.

In the article linked above [in #52557], Genie Scott says,

Most Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations have accepted evolution as the way God brought the world about, and this is also true of the theology of all but the most conservative Jews. Although it would be inappropriate for a teacher to encourage students towards or against any religious view, it is appropriate to inform them, in a comparative sense, of the existence of more than one religious perspective on creation and evolution.

— Jack Krebs

That's seems to be a pretty reasonable statement to me.

Matthew Cromer wrote: "The universe is bursting with consciousness and awareness and teleology ..."

So, judging by your link;
http://amethodnotaposition.blogspot.com/

You believe in pet psychics, faith healers and a life after death.

Did it ever occur to you that if there were any real evidence for such things that someone would have walked away with James Randi's million dollars?

http://randi.org/research/index.html

qetzal:

I think possibly the concern here is on how to respond to religious objections being raised in science classes, without either appearing to ignore or dismiss such objections as stupid, or getting sidetracked into a long uncontrolled discussion of religious doctrines as seen through the eyes of the teacher (who is all too often a creationist).

So there should probably be some standard response geared to keeping science classes focused on science without appearing to reject such questions altogether. I don't know what this response should be. Maybe it should be used as an opportunity to re-emphasize the role of evidence in science.

Simply saying "this is a science class; religious questions don't belong here" plays into the hands of those who claim science is atheistic and rejects religion as a matter of doctrine. I don't think 9th grade is too young to introduce students to the notion of what evidence is, what it is not, what it means to be testable, and how tests marshal and organize evidence usefully.

Don't BS us, Donald. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how anyone else can know any more about God than anyone else does.

So there should probably be some standard response geared to keeping science classes focused on science without appearing to reject such questions altogether. I don't know what this response should be. Maybe it should be used as an opportunity to re-emphasize the role of evidence in science. Simply saying "this is a science class; religious questions don't belong here" plays into the hands of those who claim science is atheistic and rejects religion as a matter of doctrine. I don't think 9th grade is too young to introduce students to the notion of what evidence is, what it is not, what it means to be testable, and how tests marshal and organize evidence usefully.

I could imagine some student asking "Teacher, are you saying that no religious beliefs are based on actual evidence?" That would be a pandora's box for a science class!

I don't see any good way a teacher can address the evidence question with respect to religious beliefs in a science class.

Most Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations have accepted evolution as the way God brought the world about, and this is also true of the theology of all but the most conservative Jews. Although it would be inappropriate for a teacher to encourage students towards or against any religious view, it is appropriate to inform them, in a comparative sense, of the existence of more than one religious perspective on creation and evolution.

From qetzal: I strongly disagree. I think such statements have little or no upside in a science class, and enormous downside, for the reasons I gave in #52495. Donald M's complaint in #52557 is yet another problem with this approach.

Did it ever occur to you that if there were any real evidence for such things that someone would have walked away with James Randi's million dollars?

Donald Wrote:
"Red herrings, straw men, violations of the law of non-contradiction and ad hominems seem to be the only tools of argumentation you have. It's amazing that anyone pays any attention to you at all."

So True.

Completely off topic, but:

Sir Toejam, which sciforummer are you?

Randi's challenge is a laughable joke. Let's see him post his money up for an impartial judgement by disinterested third parties.

You mean, like the impartial judgment of the lotteries, the stock market, and the gaming industry? Seems these are ripe fruits just begging to be plucked by any decent psi ability. Yet you seem to be ignoring them very very carefully. Why?

Rather than wondering why psi is not what you demand it to be

If you are going to claim that Psi doesn't work in a Casino you need to explain Radin's data which shows an effect on casino profits based on GMF. It's in this book.

No, I don't need to explain Radin's claims. YOU need to explain why casinos can and do safely ignore this. After all, casinos DO NOT see any deviation from expected, pre-calculated payouts. Their estimates, over a long period like a week, are invariably within a fraction of a percent (a small fraction) of calculated returns.

You will also need to explain why ZERO people are turned away from casinos because of any demonstrated psi ability (like they ban card-counters from the blackjack tables). At the very least, I suggest you collect your data from the Real World, rather than from books implicitly subtitled "parting the gullible from their money." I know you are a True Believer in that stuff, and you think if you holler and wave it around, you are scoring points.

Meanwhile, my money is on the casino until their returns are NOT within a tiny fraction of calculations. Go ahead and turn your psi wizards loose on the casinos. I'm willing to bet that the casinos will trust THEIR data, rather than Radin's data. The casino's data can, and is, taken straight to the bank.

If Radin's data were real, he wouldn't be writing books, he'd be coaching "gifted" gamblers. In fact, if there were any gamblers with that gift, Radin's data or not, they'd be out there exercising it. They are not. Imagine that.

If we are going to tell students in public school science classes that there is a "plurality of religious views towards evolution" and that they don't necessarily have to abandon their religious beliefs to accept evolution, as Eugenie Scott advocates, then we should also tell them that the belief that religion, or at least traditional religion, is compatible with religion is rare amoung evolutionary scientists themselves.

I suggest providing these students with the results of the Cornell Evolution Project, which found, for example, that 80% of evolutionary biologists do not believe in God in any traditional sense of the word, and that only 8% believe that evolution and religion are non-overlapping magisteria whose tenets are not in conflict.

Matthew Cromer:

Despite over a century of attempts to demonstrate the reality of "psi phenomena," no such demonstration has been made. The evidence just isn't there. That's why the scientific community does not accept it.

Make that "is compatible with evolution" in the first paragraph of #52665.

I'll get this
I printed out Matts post waved a dead chicken over the letters
I am now wrapping it around a doll and I'm going to stick pins in it.
If you get any pin pricks Matt just let know where they were and I'll tell you if you are correct.
Then you can report in the press that ID/creationist proves PSI.
That will go down a treat but be quick because Behe is getting sucked into a black hole and they may be a bit more critical than you would want them to be.
The proof will be in writing on this thread all you have to do is tell me where the pin prick is.
I guarantee you'll be famous I'm telepathic.
This could also help Behe since PSI is the same as Astrology which he concedes could also explain ID. After all it has the same predictive powers and so on. Gee That's real easy to prove all you have to do is read the newspaper and it really happens.

'xcuse me while I go stare at Goats.

Rather than wondering why psi is not what you demand it to be, why not comment on scientific studies replicated by skeptics?

Despite over a century of attempts to demonstrate the reality of "psi phenomena," no such demonstration has been made. The evidence just isn't there. That's why the scientific community does not accept it.

Quite possibly because Sheldrake is not a skeptic - Sheldrake is, by all accounts, a crack-pot

I noticed when the parrot film was showing Lewis wasn't looking at it. . . He said "telepathy is just junk, there is no evidence whatsoever for any person, place, or thing to be telepathic." The filmmakers were surprised that he hadn't actually asked to see the evidence before he commented on it. I think this is rather like the Cardinal Bellamine and people not wanting to look through Galileo's telescope. I think we have a level here of just not wanting to know -- which is not real science, I'm sorry to have to say it Lewis.

Hmm, still no comment about actual real-world casino results. Instead, we get a bunch of "read AnswersInPsi" where we abolish the taboo against rejecting what has been discredited, so that we can rationalize our beliefs.

(I read an interesting observation about statistical conclusions, concerning the 5% cutoff. In other words, statistically something had to have no more than a 5% chance of happening by sampling error to be published. But this means that up to 5% of all published results might have happened at random. Now, let's say you believe in psi, and let's say your "evidence" is necessarily statistical. Do a study 100 times, and by golly, five of those will find statistical significance. Now put those five (and no others, and no mention of all the studies that did NOT find significance) on your blog, point to them, and say "Explain THAT!"

This is the casino issue in miniature. Like collecting only those who win, and saying "Look, ALL these people defied the odds. Explain THAT!" Meanwhile the casino banks a predicted percentage day after day.)

Of course the evidence is there. Just like the evidence is there for evolution which the fundamentalist Christians reject.

I think that Dr. Scott's position on this is legitimate--- although, qetzal, I agree that we're in risky territory. However, I think that the issues you raise can be skirted, if the statement is worded carefully.

— Brian Spitzer

Not necessarily. After all, this isn't the issue here. The issue is, what does the evidence actually indicate, where did that evidence come from, how is it evaluated and tested. Whether or not any given religious belief is based on evidence belongs quite clearly and strictly in a class on religions. What evidence supports a given scientific theory belongs in a science class. The focus MUST remain on the scientific theory, not the religious objections.

That's exactly my point. Religious questions do not belong in science classes. Instead, I was envisioning inappropriate nonscienfic questions about religion being used as an opportunity to change the subject back to science, without seeming either to reject any particular faith or treat that faith as though it were scientific.

It was a simpler time (back when we thought Edwards was going to be the last word), but I'd like to share the approach my high school Biology teacher took toward the issue. (This is in Lawrence KS in 1987 [now that I think about it that was the year of Edwards, wasn't it?] --the teacher was Stan Roth, for those, like Jack Krebs? who might recognize the name.)

He said (roughly)
Class, we are about to begin a six-week unit on Mendelian Genetics and Evolution. These are central concepts in the study of life, and you can't really understand biology without them. However, there are those in this state and across the country who believe that I should be required to present you with an "alternative account" of how life, the universe, and everything came to be as it is...
*proceeds, without further introduction, to read the Hopi creation myth*
That's my favorite.
*smiles. proceeds to teach evolution*
Thoughts?

Mr. Krebs (or anyone else who agree's with Dr. Scott's position), please tell my why you think my concerns are unfounded, or why you think the benefits of making such statements in science class outweigh the detriments.

yeah, if the fundies get their way, that teacher would be subject to reprimand just as readily as one who wouldn't read the statement to begin with. and you know why.

Don't BS us, Donald. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how anyone else can know any more about God than anyone else does.

Perhaps you should take your "BS" complaint to Ms Scott, since she's the one advising teachers on how to talk about religion in the science class.

As to your second sentence, you've got it exactly backwards. You're the one who needs to answer the questions I put to you and not vice-versa. But as that was another thread, there's no point resurrecting it here.

Speaking rhetorically, why would we consider making such statements in science class? It's certainly not the place for comparative religious discussions in general. The only real argument for making such statements in science class is to overcome religious objections to the theory of evolution.

Is theistic meteorology compatible with naturalistic meteorology?

If I fully accept the scientific account of how hurricanes arise with the one proviso that the causes might appear to be natural, but in fact are guided by God, am I not contradicting the whole point of the scientific account?

Hurricanes used to be explained as being the wrath of God, before the concept of nature and the method of science existed. Is not theistic meteorology a contradiction in terms?

...and if it is not a contradiction then why should I not be allowed to say that Katrina and AIDS and all the afflictions of humanity are not the punishments of God?

am I not contradicting the whole point of the scientific account?

Donald M:

It strikes me that you are looking for a pure strategy in this game, and I doubt one can exist. For better or worse, the fact is that SOME religious doctrines do indeed make claims testable through the observation of evidence, and such claims run the risk of conflicting with the evidence and failing the tests. If Scott is saying this is not so, Scott needs to brush up on her religious doctrines a bit. It is just plain true that ANY religion that makes ANY testable claim bears this risk.

Now, what response can anyone possibly give when this happens? Should the teacher deny the evidence? Should the teacher reject the religious doctrine on the basis of evidence? If the teacher uses the general approach of "these are the facts on the ground, and here are the best current explanations for them, as science requires" is the student's faith being undermined? How can the teacher best get across the essential point you focus your concern on: that the assumption of evolution as having no "overall goal" best explains the observations and leads to the most accurate predictions, while the projection of teleological views onto the evidence produces lousy predictions?

So I think any teacher should make this point at least once as required, and make it strongly: ANY religious doctrine that makes testable statements about the physical universe is ipso facto trespassing on scientific territory and runs the same scientific risk as any OTHER such statement, of being falsified by the evidence. And if your personal faith requires belief contrary to observation and evidence, this is YOUR problem and not a problem with either science or religion. At least not *necessarily* a problem with religion, because many faiths are careful not to insist on falsifiable claims.

Personally, I don't like Scott's approach, because I think it's asking for trouble. To me, it implies that there are two classes of religions; neutral (read:useless) and stupid. And science only conflicts with the stupid religions. If yours is of the useless persuasion, you enjoy no benefits but at least suffer no conflicts. And in my opinion, faiths are perceived by those who hold them as being powerfully beneficial. Those that do not insist on the literal truth of arrant nonsense are fortunate that their faith did not choose to pick a fight with reality. Faiths that DO pick that fight will cripple their followers regardless of what Scott says or how science teachers teach.

So I prefer the approach Kurt Wise the Creationist recommends: tell the students to learn the lessons and pass the tests. There is no requirement that you *believe* anything you are taught, only that you understand it.

...and if it is not a contradiction then why should I not be allowed to say that Katrina and AIDS and all the afflictions of humanity are not the punishments of God?

ANY religious doctrine that makes testable statements about the physical universe is ipso facto trespassing on scientific territory

Radin (1997) documents variations in lottery and gaming payout rates due to GMF fluctuations. And certainly some stock pickers have experienced remarkable success which may (or may not) be due to psi-like "gut feelings".

Speaking of Casey, he's got some more crap up at Evolve "News". Still no fixed Trackbacks.

So I prefer the approach Kurt Wise the Creationist recommends: tell the students to learn the lessons and pass the tests. There is no requirement that you *believe* anything you are taught, only that you understand it.

I don't blame you, Donald. *I* sure wouldn't want to state on a public blog, in front of the whoel world, that I think I know more about God than anyone else does because God talks to me and tells me. People might think I was ... well... nutty.

Personally, I don't like Scott's approach, because I think it's asking for trouble.

Perhaps you should take your "BS" complaint to Ms Scott, since she's the one advising teachers on how to talk about religion in the science class.

Dr Scott does not speak on behalf of all scientists, DOnlad. And your attempt to imply that she DOES, or that all (or even most) scientists agree with her, is BS. Deliberate, calculated, dishonest BS. The kind I long ago learned to expect from ID/creationists.

be careful donald, you're many uses of lenny's (TM) colloqualisms and phrases like "hand waving" make it seem as tho he has you under his thumb.

how exactly did lenny misinterpret your statement?

when you say scott is "the one"? seems like he correctly interpreted that to mean you thought scott was the lone scientist advising the rest of us on how to teach science. perhaps you should be more clear with what you mean then? er, what WAS your point, anyway. I can't figure it out even re-reading your statement several times.

Furthermore, I never ever made the claim you are desparately trying to imply I made, and you know it.

Sorry, but the claim that religion is "trespassing" when it makes claims about the natural world is not a scientific claim, it's a theological or philosophical one, and it does not belong in a public school science class. It's essentially an expression of the NOMA position that the vast majority of scientists do not seem to accept.

— Don P

I'm not actual sure where to put this as it is the second (and last) post
It is relavent to this part of the thread

Australian scientists are fighting back.

They're producing an open letter that unequivocally states Intelligent Design is not science and must not be taught in science classrooms.

The open letter, signed by a host of Australian scientists and science educators, will appear in national newspapers tomorrow.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1486827....

Dear Mr. Story The IEEE Information Theory Society serves our members in several ways - mainly through our journal, conferences, newsletter and website. Our hallmark is peer review - we would welcome the submission of scientific papers from Mr. Dembski or yourself to our journal or conferences. Best regards Steve McLaughlin President, IEEE Information Theory Society, 2005

I don't think you read my post very carefully. I didn't intend this statement as a policy position, but rather as a general observation of why science and religion sometimes come into conflict.

@Steve

*sigh* pretty much what i expected; sorry. nice try tho.

You ARE perfectly allowed to say that, and to preach it from any pulpit in any church anywhere in the United States of America. What you are NOT allowed to do is claim that it is "science" and belongs in science classrooms or textbooks.

— Lenny

True Lenny, but the real point is that if theistic science is compatible with naturalistic science and not a contradiction of it, then there can be no reason for objecting to them being taught alongide one another in science class.

"Of COURSE there is ------ the best reason of all. It's illegal."

Ha, silly of me. How right you are. Thank God for the constitution!

Thank God for the constitution!

Science is science. Science is not religion. Religion is religion. Religion is not science.

— Lenny