Silly Billy on Silly books

From the Wedge Document: Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

Darwin Loves You

Not surprisingly, Dembski doesn't understand Rawls (John) either. There is no way that any scientific theory, no matter how comprehensive or successful, would meet the criteria for what Rawls refers to as a comprehensive doctrine. Rawls was referring specifically to a set of moral principles that could be the basis for a polity. Now, 19th century Social Darwinism might meet Rawls' criteria but certainly not modern evolutionary theory.

There is no way that any scientific theory, no matter how comprehensive or successful, would meet the criteria for what Rawls refers to as a comprehensive doctrine. Rawls was referring specifically to a set of moral principles that could be the basis for a polity. Now, 19th century Social Darwinism might meet Rawls' criteria but certainly not modern evolutionary theory.

... Oliver Curry predicts humans will evolve into 2 subspecies in the next thousand years.

If "Darwin Loves You" will be interesting at all, it will probably be provocative. Levine seems to lean heavily on "enchantment". First it is introduced by defining "disenchantment", as science and further naturalism removing meaning from the world. Then it is expanded by reference to Jane Bennett to a "kind of mood" provided by other sources than the natural world.

Already the mood of awe of nature is an addition to a discussion of science. Enchantment goes one step further to lose the correlation to observable nature that constrains the former and gives it meaning.

Levine also bases part of his discussion of disenchantment on Pinker. (BTW, that is Steven Pinker, not Stephen AFAIK.) Whatever one makes of Pinker and evolutionary psychology (which in my case isn't much since I don't know much of them), their use of domain-specific mechanisms seems problematic at my quick peek on languages:

"In conclusion, much evidence interpreted to support language-specific mechanisms may actually result from domain-general processes. ... Perhaps the only "problem area" for such an account is the recently defined G-SLI disorder, but more research is needed before GSLI can be considered strong evidence for either perspective.

Therefore, no unequivocal evidence from any of these domains suggests specialized mechanisms must exist to account for language; instead, language appears to emerge as an interaction of powerful but domain-general mechanisms." ( http://develintel.blogspot.com/2006/10/language-disorders-modularity-and.html )

Not that it makes disenchantment less likely, just noting the problematic source in passing.

I've got to admit. If I didn't read the book, and some of the critics posted here, but only the Amazon blurb from Publisher's Weekly- which may well be only what Dembski read- I'd come away from it thinking the book describes the religion of Darwinism. In that, some descriptions of the book seem to create the idea that it is talking about ethics and the numinous as arising out of Darwin- as quite distinct from the theory of evolution. Some may come away from reading reviews of the book thinking that it describes religion. And some of those may not be able to differentiate possible religious elements (whether or not they are actually present) from the science itself. My point is that, while the book might be excellent, it's press in partial might hurt our cause in causing some people to accept the idea that evolution is religion, or in causing people to combine in their minds a very small minority that actually makes a religion around evolution with evolution as a theory.

Just looking through the start of the online chapter makes it incredibly clear this is not some fuzzy-headed book, but one about philosophy, science, and psychology. In fact, the author deliberately notes that he bears in mind that there's a danger in his work to make Darwin's finding religious.

His worst mistake seems to be the goofy title. Dembski is literally judging a book by it's cover.

I think the concern is that evolution could indeed become a religion, or part of a religion. Thus it would actually be an alternative religion, or perhaps already is (in part at least) a quasi-religion to a number of people, and might compete with traditional religions, with the added bonus of being scientific.

I do remember the magazine Omni predicting that evolution would be a fertile source of ideas for future religions. Could be.

Meanwhile, the theory itself is certainly not a religion (otherwise Collins would be blasphemous, yet Cordova is attempting to claim him today on UD), but is called one by the IDists. Or, evolution is faulted for being anything but religion, godless, soulless, materialistic (btw, what could be more materialistic than claiming that animals are designed (at least when reasonable definitions of design are used)?), etc. The criticisms aren't coherent, of course, and it is impossible to know on any given day if evolution is so bad because it is so completely non-religious (or more commonly, "anti-religious"), or because it is supposed to be a competing religion.

The common bleat from IDists is that evolution makes us into mere accident or meaningless development. They rely upon this touchy question to damn us as anti-meaning, anti-spiritual, you know the spiel. But of course evolution, like science in general, has no statement to make regarding "meaning" overall, thus evolution could easily be incorporated into one's belief system, and be understood by us both spiritually and scientifically. The imagination, when working through the development of sentience out of the mud, does tend toward the spiritual and the mystic, without (in my case, at least), making evolution into anything specifically spiritual.

Dembski and other evangelists don't want anyone to realize how the world can be spiritualized (or not) without the intrusion of religion and of a putative God who must confer meaning and design from the outside. The world-internal spirituality of paganism, and sometimes of science (if one chooses, since such an attitude has no bearing on ideal scientific practice), denies their claims that meaning has to come from outside, even that understanding is based upon the God-intellect, and not upon our thinking (which is why "design" doesn't have to fall into the regularities of known design---it's left up to God's mind, not our own (hence is absolutely outside of science)).

So there was no question that Dembski would jump to the conclusion that evolution is a religion, or at least a Rawlsian 'comprehensive doctrine', the moment that it was shown not to be an impediment to spirituality. Now one should note that science is indifferent to spiritualization or other universality, and the only universality it recognizes is the standard empirical approach. As his wont is, though, Dembski's logic moves from the particular premise to the universal conclusion, and if anyone looks at the changes wrought during evolution through a spiritual point of view, then it's the equivalent of a religion.

Meanwhile, apparently ID is science because it is comprehensive in its approach ("non-materialistic"), while evolution doesn't consider gods or unknown aliens who design unlike we do, for its explanations. Evolution is thus too limited and too comprehensive all at once. It exists to deny religion, and it is a religion.

To conclude, what Dembski appears to dislike about Levine's book is that it shows that evolution doesn't fit into his binary world. Evolution is compatible with religious ideas (if perhaps not with many religious methods of deciding "truth"), and with atheism. He doesn't like that, because if he can't portray evolution as indubitably atheistic, he loses his congregation. But whenever he's not saying that evolution is inherently atheistic, he has to claim that it is religious or a comprehensive worldview, even though he faults evolution for not being comprehensive enough to accept religious explanations (and we explicitly deny that science, let alone the evolutionary part of science, is the comprehensive arbiter of truth). His criticisms are thus unavoidably schizoid, as befits one whose view of an open system has to fit everything into his oppositional conception of the world and of its scientific theories.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

His worst mistake seems to be the goofy title.

Judging a book by its cover would be the least of Dembski's intellectual failings.

Good grief, since when have Dembski or any of his fanbois given a crap what John Rawls thinks? They hate liberalism with a passion. Trying to force a "comprehensive doctrine" on the citizenry is precisely what they're all about.

Did you really mean to write "author does not mingle any words," or did you mean "mince?"

I gotta admit, the prospect of a religion based on Darwinism terrifies the crap out of me.

Don't get me wrong -- I think that evolutionary theory in all of its myriad iterations is a fantastic thing, and I think that ID is a startlingly nihilistic philosophy (in addition to flat-out wrong). But evolution is just a description of a natural phenomenon, like plate tectonics or the process of volcano eruption. Scientifically, it seems pretty rock-solid, and it provides all sorts of interesting areas to explore. Philosophically, I think evolution is more problematic.

Most religions have some motivation towards altruism and pay a lot of lip service to goodness, kindness, generosity, and love. Evolution, as a description of a natural process, doesn't have any of those. The philosophies that evolution inspires often actively oppose altruism and charity. There's a reason Social Darwinism gets such a bad rap, and it's not because the fundies hate puppies and sunshine.

Coming from a religious background (an "intellectual" church deeply supportive of the ID movement; we've had both William Dembski and Michael Behe speak there), I've noticed that this conflation of philosophy and theory is the source of a lot of the fear of evolution. Aside from removing the need for God, and making it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist", is that it is completely amoral. People who base their actions on their status as men and women created in the image of God fear that those of us who accept evolution will base our actions on our status as the organisms most successful in our ecological niche.

Ironically, the actions we recognize as the most clearly aligned with the "philosophy" of evolution -- war, genocide, clear in-group/out-group separation and competition for natural resources -- are historically religious in nature. The most significant explicitly atheist movement possibly ever -- communism -- is based on a radical egalitarianism at odds with most people's conception of "what evolution wants".

I apologize if this is too far off-topic. I lurk here a lot, and this thread (most notably the comment by Glen Davidson) seemed interesting to me.

The achievements of contemporary evolutionary biology are, indeed, an important part of the world-picture held by many who post here. Certainly that is true of me. I cannot imagine a more exciting era in which to live in this regard as contemporary physics, astronomy, and cosmology cross-connect with evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, and even cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology to form a profound and increasingly complete world picture with true extension into deep time. The engine that drives the evolution of this picture (science) is a crowning achievement of an otherwise often troubled and dangerous age, and I for one don't apologize for embracing that. Rather, I simply endeavor to inhabit and respond to my tiny bit of space and time within the natural world.

While religious ideas also can be a component of one's world picture, it does not follow that the world picture I describe above, or the engine that drives it, is itself a religion. To insist upon that is tantamount to insisting that an automobile is a horse because automobiles serve the purpose once served by horses. Nor does it follow that one is attempting to "build a religion based upon Darwinism," any more than one builds "horses based upon engines" on an automobile assembly line.

since when have Dembski or any of his fanbois given a crap what John Rawls thinks? They hate liberalism with a passion.

imho, Most of the philosophies/religious ideas that have come off evolution have been fringe elements, radically misinterpreting evolutionary theory, like the awful Social Darwinism of the past. At the same time, if evolution is true (and we have no reason to doubt it scientifically), and a particular religious belief is true, then both should support each other, and help to explain each other. In particular, if both are true, then we should see some ways that evolution can help us understand both morality and metaphysics within that religious framework. A religion by definition is all-encompassing. Not that it can explain everything, but that it covers all of life. And evolution is part of life, to put it mildly. Therefore it should somehow fit and serve to explain some aspects of said religion.

I cannot imagine a more exciting era in which to live in this regard as contemporary physics, astronomy, and cosmology cross-connect with evolutionary biology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, and even cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary psychology to form a profound and increasingly complete world picture with true extension into deep time. The engine that drives the evolution of this picture (science) is a crowning achievement of an otherwise often troubled and dangerous age, and I for one don't apologize for embracing that. Rather, I simply endeavor to inhabit and respond to my tiny bit of space and time within the natural world.

At the same time, if evolution is true (and we have no reason to doubt it scientifically), and a particular religious belief is true, then both should support each other, and help to explain each other. In particular, if both are true, then we should see some ways that evolution can help us understand both morality and metaphysics within that religious framework.

But if evolution is true and the processes that resulted in the life we see around us were relatively unguided, then evolution has absolutely nothing to say about morality or ethics. Let me be clear about this: evolution is not morally neutral, it is amoral. Evolutionary theory does a bang-up job of explaining the diversity of life and providing a history or a narrative of its progression. What it doesn't do is tell us how things ought to be. Like religion, this is entirely orthogonal to evolutionary theory.

— Carl Rennie

The most basic impact evolutionary theory would have on a philosophy/morality is the notion, antithetical to most philosophies and moralities, that "human nature", whatever else we may think of that term, is not a fixed commodity, but is and will continue to change under whatever environmental pressures are present. This then would seem to add a level of pragmatism to any collective decisionmaking that will always ask "what sort of world will decision X create and what sort of people will that world create?".

This then would seem to add a level of pragmatism to any collective decisionmaking that will always ask "what sort of world will decision X create and what sort of people will that world create?".

...would the development of social structures such as the Catholic Church be inevitable? I think yes. These structures have been so successful in helping their followers to propogate their genes, that it is nearly certain that evolution would stumble on the idea at some point...

Judging a book by its cover would be the least of Dembski's intellectual failings.

I gotta admit, the prospect of a religion based on Darwinism terrifies the crap out of me.

— Carl Rennie

Tooth decay is natural, but we brush our teeth anyway.

— Carl Rennie

I have often wondered what the result would be if we could actually run an entire simulation of the evolution of life on this planet. Would the development of intelligent life be inevitable? If yes, would the development of social structures such as the Catholic Church be inevitable? I think yes. These structures have been so successful in helping their followers to propogate their genes, that it is nearly certain that evolution would stumble on the idea at some point, and once having found the idea, it's natural advantages for the propogation of genes would mean that it sticks....

Actually, I'm not sure that I agree with this. If we take on Dawkins' idea of the extended genome, and we consider that the historical truth of the Christian church is more of a social construct rather than a divine creation, we are lead to the conclusion that the "morals" of the church are nothing more than a social construct designed to help propogate genes. Think about the Catholic church's complete abolition of birth control. Think about the whole idea of catechism - indoctrinating young children to hold the same beliefs - this propogates the memes of the church to the next generation, which, seeing as one of the church's memes is "go forth and multiply" means that the genes will be propogated too.

— demallien

I agree with Carl. Science can inform our ethical decisions, for example, knowledge of gravity and human physiology tells me what will happen if I shove my sister off a cliff. Knowing that this will kill her, I can make an ethical judgment about the morality of pushing her off. But my ethics is independent of the science. My ethics say killing her is wrong, science just tells me that this is a way of killing her.

Science, evolution included, allows us to judge the consequences of our actions, then we can make moral decisions about them. Science does not ever tell us what is moral.

Science tells us we are destroying the environment. Environmentalists call this bad and claim we should stop. Others don't care and think we should push forward. Ethics are independent of the science. (Note, I'm not talking about the people who lie about the science here.)

The most basic impact evolutionary theory would have on a philosophy/morality is the notion, antithetical to most philosophies and moralities, that "human nature", whatever else we may think of that term, is not a fixed commodity, but is and will continue to change under whatever environmental pressures are present.

I agree with Carl.

I agree with Carl. Science can inform our ethical decisions, for example, knowledge of gravity and human physiology tells me what will happen if I shove my sister off a cliff. Knowing that this will kill her, I can make an ethical judgment about the morality of pushing her off. But my ethics is independent of the science. My ethics say killing her is wrong, science just tells me that this is a way of killing her. Science, evolution included, allows us to judge the consequences of our actions, then we can make moral decisions about them. Science does not ever tell us what is moral.

My proposal was that your morals are like that because killing your sister obviously has a deleterious effect on your genes being propogated, as your sister shares over 50% of them...

Going to the more general case, I would suggest that living in large communities is what has permitted humans to rise above our animal cousins.

As I understand it, Dawkins would have none of this group selection stuff, as he is focused upon his selfish gene model, and these issues were among those that gave rise to such antipathy between Dawkins/Dennett on one hand and Gould on the other. These also, BTW, exemplify some of the genuine controversies that rage within the community of evolutionary science, contra the bogus controversies promulgated by ID.

I never have been able to understand what Dawkins' problem was with Group Selection. It seems clear to me that once a genome becomes capable of creating social constructs, thanks to the extended phenotypes, that Group Selection becomes an obvious consequence. In other words, Dawkins' own theory leads to the result. That said, I understand that Group Selection is still quite iffy if you want to apply it to say, rabbits. But in the case of humans, if you were to talk about the advantages of living in a group to an archaeologist, or even a historian, they would consider that as uncontroversial.

— demallien

The thing is, group selection isn't about the advantage of living in a group---it's about the advantage of serving a group, sacrificing your own fitness (including extended or delayed fitness via kin selection or reciprocal altruism) to help your fellows. Can there be traits that spread through a population because their owner's group has a better chance of outcompeting other groups, but which don't give their owner or hir kin a better chance of outbreeding other group members? That's a difficult question to resolve.

— Anton Mates

I have tried to put my bad experiences with PT and Dispatches from the Culture Wars behind me. I am going to get very unhappy when people on these blogs follow me to other blogs and try to harass me there.

Posted by Larry Fafarman on October 22, 2006 3:07 AM (e) Hello-o-o-o! Guess what! It's me again. Remember me? I'm b-a-a-a-c-k.

I was minding my own business on PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula

when a lousy troll by the name of Ichthyic

I never have been able to understand what Dawkins' problem was with Group Selection.

Can there be traits that spread through a population because their owner's group has a better chance of outcompeting other groups, but which don't give their owner or hir kin a better chance of outbreeding other group members?

As I said in my last post, I think that this question has been definitively answered in the affirmative for human beings.

"I was minding my own business on PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula..."

Hmmmm...I never considered when I post on a blog that I am "minding my own business". On the contrary, if I wanted to mind my own business, I'd stay off blogs that pertain to anything other than my current profession.

In the interest of setting things straight I feel that I should fill in the blanks here. (And no Larry, I haven't followed you here - you can easily check my recent activity on PT.)

On a thread about Gogonasus we were discussing what the prediction where. Larry ignored the answers and misstated evolution and theory forming more hideously than usual, which prompted the frequent poster Ichthyic to make an impropriate, threatening but informative comment about Larry's person. (It is complicated - in this case it lead to information concerning Larry and how one should behave with him, so it was perhaps necessary.)

"as usual, Larry, you are incorrect. several recent major finds WERE in fact predicted, both in kind and in placement.

go figure.

have you started taking your meds yet? I mean, I know your brother told us to go easy on you, but really, you do set yourself up constantly.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 21, 2006 06:48 AM

...Don't make me post that thread where your brother exposes your condition, Larry.

you wouldn't like that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | October 21, 2006 06:51 AM"

(More info on what Ichthyic meant is on the thread; http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/10/gogonasus_andrewsae.php )

"Ichthyic said ( October 21, 2006 06:51 AM ) --

...Don't make me post that thread where your brother exposes your condition, Larry. you wouldn't like that.

Don't start a flame war here, Ichthyic. PZ Myers wouldn't like that. Because I can post comments here by means of anonymous proxies (this comment is posted by anonymous proxy), he can delete my comments but he cannot block them except by enabling universal comment moderation, which would be a great inconvenience to himself and to the readers. Without comment moderation, my nasty comments -- as well as yours -- could sit on this blog for some time before he finds and deletes them.

Posted by: Larry Fafarman | October 21, 2006 12:35 PM

Making threats to inconvenience me or my readers means you're gone, bozo.

Posted by: PZ Myers | October 21, 2006 01:02 PM"

PZ seems to be the levelheaded person here. Contrary to what Larry says he was not blocked on the thread, PZ disemvoweled his comments as he does with other abusers.

Carl-

You said, "I have to disagree strongly with this. There's an underlying assumption here, and that is that we are the way we are for a specific, objective reason. That evolution occurs the way it does for a specific, objective reason. If the Christian religion is indeed true (which I very much doubt), and if evolution is true (as the evidence suggests), then yes, they would have something to say about each other, and something that's not particularly flattering to either God or science."

(Sorry, don't know how to box comments.) I agree with you- that is an underlying assumption in what I said, but also an underlying assumption of most religions. Not to say that evolution doesn't occur entirely through natural selection, chance, et.al.- but the idea in most religions is that God/s is behind it, and there is a reason for events. Therefore, if both were true, then both have to support each other. If religion or a religion is not true, then of course, this doesn't apply.

But to be clear- science should not influence the ethics. There are many ways to ethically interpret evolution, after all, often mutually contradictory. Nor can it be a proof for God/s. But if a particular religion is true, along with evolution being true, then we can understand both better through the other, as they have a common source, and, in the case of the religion, I can come closer to the heart of the belief through the study of evolution.

Back to the Rawls argument: The new White Paper from the Poynter Center at Indiana uses Rawls to argue against inclusion of ID (a position most would find more congenial to his thinking). See http://curricublog.wordpress.com/

But if a particular religion is true...

But if a particular religion is true...

But if a particular religion is true...

cleanup iniatiated...

Surprisingly, abeit inadvertently, Larry's incontinence DOES contain a hint of something useful: this software is just terrible. We keep getting notifications that the server will be upgraded, but the symptoms haven't changed:

1) Post a comment
2) Get a message that the server timed out and isn't responding
3) Keep trying until the server returns
4) Examine the "recent comments" list in the main page. Nope, your comment isn't there
5) Go to the thread where you just commented. Nope, your comment isn't there
6) Either re-submit your comment, after which it shows up twice, or don't re-submit, after which it never shows up at all.

This is the "medium difficulty" path, of course. The maximum difficulty path is for the browser itself to crash when trying to access that thread. Over and over, sometimes for hours. Other threads can be accessed without the crash.

This is irritating.

Flint:

Sometimes, when the server acts up like that and I am uncertain whether my comment was posted or not, I simply click "Preview". Most often, when I check the comments below the preview, I find my comment duly posted.

Thanks. I'll make a note to try that.

The maximum difficulty path is for the browser itself to crash when trying to access that thread.

Mr. Rennie: Perhaps you should encourage your church to invite some historians as speakers, who could then remind your flock that the evil behavior some IDiots currently blame on "Darwinism" actually predates Darwin by THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

Also, your church may want ot invite speakers from other Christian churches (i.e., Catholic and/or Lutheran), to remind your flock that some Christian churches explicitly accept evolution and see no conflict between it and Christian doctrine.

No, Sleazy PZ is not level-headed --- he went after me instead of going after the scumbag who started it by responding to a difference of opinion or a misunderstanding by threatening to post a link to an unrelated quarrel that I had on another blog.

In your case, Larry, that would have been a perfectly appropriate response, insofar as it would have illustrated your irrationality, lack of credibility, and...how can I put this gently?...your obvious mental illness and inability to deal with the real world. I've seen plenty of material ON YOUR OWN BLOG to prove all of that, in all its shameful, disgraceful glory; and if you don't want to see it quoted to your detriment, then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.

PS: Have you apologized to Ed Brayton, your brother Dave, and Gods-know-who-else you've insulted by posting responses in their names?

Clean up successfully completed...

So now Larry is down to reposting the same "response" over and over? What a pathetic old sod.

My condolences and best wishes to his family -- dealing with a sorry old crankcase like that can't be easy for them.

It is not worth the waste of time to prepare a new response over and over.

That seems to be the working philosophy of the entire creationist movement. It's certainly not worth their time to do any new research, or bring anything new to the grownups' table.

More soap added