There is another issue about L'Affaire Sternberg that I think needs to be expounded upon, one that doesn't seem to have been addressed much at length up to this point. And that is the role of the Office of Special Council (OSC) in releasing their
preliminary findings that tried to make a martyr out of Sternberg.
Below the fold I will go into a fair amount of detail about how this came to be.
The
Souder report is little more than the OSC findings warmed-over; as far as I can tell the body of the report contains nothing new. The bulk of that report consists of the OSC findings restated and used as a form of evidence in and of themselves. The report even attacks the Smithsonian for not accepting the OSC's findings at face value. Consider this passage attacking the Smithsonian's response:
Finally, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary continue to ignore the clear findings of the Office of Special Counsel in its "pre-closure" letter to Dr. Sternberg. The OSC found that Dr. Sternberg's allegations of discrimination were supported by the evidence uncovered through its preliminary investigation.
And then it continues for another 4 paragraphs about the OSC, never once questioning its veracity, finally concluding...
The Deputy Secretary responded on May 3, 2006, by claiming that the Smithsonian has "conducted an internal inquiry, including a review of OSC's preliminary findings, and concluded that Dr. von Sternberg is a Research Associate in good standing at NMNH, and that he has the same access to office space, laboratories, collections, libraries and other common facilities as that accorded to other Research Associates."76 Tellingly, the Deputy Secretary's statement completely failed to address the central question of whether the harassment and discrimination identified in the OSC report took place. Indeed, from the Deputy Secretary's non-responsive "response," one cannot determine whether the Smithsonian's "internal inquiry" even addressed this issue. [emphasis original]
This passage exemplifies the extreme dishonesty of the report; those things that the Smithsonian inquired about -- Sternberg's office space, access to collections, status as a Research Associate, etc. --
were the very things that the alleged harassment and discrimination consisted of. In other words, the Smithsonian investigated the charges made in the OSC report, found them to be without merit, and got on with their business. Outside of those specific charges, there wasn't any harassment or discrimination to inquire about.
So contrary to the Souder report, the Smithsonian did not ignore the OSC's preliminary findings -- the letters sent by the Secretaries both to Sternberg and the politicians directly address most if not all of its allegations -- it's that they found the report's claims and hysterical rhetoric completely wrongheaded. What makes the Souder report something more than just a repeat of the OSC is that it contains an
appendix with all of the emails and letters that were used as evidence of Sternberg's supposed persecution. Thanks to these materials, we now know that the Smithsonian was right and the OSC was wrong. The question is, how could this have happened? Since when did the OSC abandon its mission of protecting whistleblowers and instead become a political chop shop?
The answer is, ever since Special Counsel Scott Bloch was put in charge.
A comprehensive review of Bloch's malfeasance would take up too much time and space. The following links have the full story if you're interested (
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7), plus many, many more can be found on Google. I'll just summarize:
- Bloch is a far-right wing activist and a notorious homophobe.
- Upon taking office Bloch immediately removed references to sexual orientation discrimination from the OSC website. Bloch has indicated that he will not protect gays from discrimination in contradiction of White House policy.
- Bloch is alleged to have used the OSC for partisan political purposes by ignoring claims made against Republicans while vigorously pursuing complaints lodged against Democrats.
- Bloch doubled the number of political appointees in the OSC, giving high paying salaries to many of his friends and fellow right-wing activists who have no relevant experience. He has simultaneously eviscerated the OSC's professional staff, much of whom has either been fired for not relocating on short notice or resigned in frustration.
- James McVay, who wrote the preliminary report concerning Sternberg, is one of Bloch's more controversial political appointees. He has no experience in employment law, whistleblower law, or federal-sector work.
- Many hundreds of meritorious cases, which by all accounts should have been investigated, were dismissed without investigation by Bloch's office. Meanwhile, matters over which OSC has no jurisdiction have been pursued rigorously. (Sound familiar?)
- According to the OSC's own polling, Federal employees are extremely dissatisfied with the work being done by the OSC, and effectively no whistleblowers have received relief as a result of the complaints they filed.
- When complaints were made about Bloch's behavior and mistreatment of the staff, Bloch not only dismissed the complaints, he allegedly retaliated against the people who made them and issued a gag order preventing the OSC staff from speaking to anyone outside of the agency. Ironically, it is precisely this type of retaliation and intimidation of whistleblowers that the OSC is tasked with investigating.
- As a result of OSC failing to discharge its duties and taking revenge on aggrieved staff, former staff members and numerous whistleblower protection groups have filed a complaint with the Office of Personnel Management, which has launched an investigation (still on-going, as far as I can tell). Additionally, two Senate committees were forced to hold hearings concerning Bloch's behavior.
It almost couldn't get worse. There is a long and sordid history since Bloch took over the OSC of cronyism, political bias, shirking, and unfair treatment of staff. Scott Bloch makes former FEMA director Michael Brown look like a brilliant leader and seasoned professional by comparison.
This explains how the OSC managed to produce an preliminary investigation on the Sternberg affair that is so completely divorced from reality. Put simply, it was a political hatchet job, yet another in a long line of abuses that the OSC has become infamous for. What's perhaps most telling about all of this is that in spite of having a major backlog in cases, in spite of trying to pare down this backlog by dismissing meritorious cases without investigation,
the OSC somehow found the time to investigate a case for which they knew they had no jurisdiction. Amazing, isn't it? If you are a whistleblower who needs protection, or a gay federal worker who's been discriminated against, the OSC simply doesn't have time for you. They're too busy pursuing cases outside of their jurisdiction in service of the Culture Wars.
Considering that Sternberg should have known that the OSC lacked jurisdiction, it is my belief that the Discovery Institute referred him to Bloch's office knowing that even though the case was outside the OSC's purview, even though there were more appropriate venues for handling a legitimate grievance of this kind, Bloch and McVay would dutifully issue a preliminary report that would serve the propaganda purposes of the DI. One even wonders if the DI wrote the report for them.
(Cross-posted to
Sunbeams from Cucumbers.)
79 Comments
Mark Studduck, FCD · 20 December 2006
SO,.... You do not think there was any biased or unfair treatment of Sternberg after he published the Meyer paper?
If there was, then the person behind the OSC who is making the claim doesn't matter. What matters here is not the character of Bloch but the truth value to his claim. SO, if the answer is yes, (Sternberg was mistreated) then your post falls in line with the long history of fallicious debating tactics employed by people on a losing side. (ie. attacking the source rather than the claim.)
If the answer is No, (Sternberg was not unfairly treated) then the next question is, should he have been? I mean c'mon, this guy published an ID paper, should the scientific community not black ball him and do whatever they can to purify their ranks? As a reader in the history of science, I know that this is how the dissenters and fringe scientists (who sometimes become revolutionaries) are first treated. And I have heard many people in the anti-ID community, (not just scientists but activists from many fields) comment about not admitting students who hold ID into graduate programs, not granting tenure to ID friendly science professors, etc etc. From what I understand, that is at least by reading the bloggers here at PT and affiliated sites, Sternberg should be mistreated, fired, and possibly made to play in traffic. People here don't even think he deserves his degrees. So, why retract from the reports findings? Why not just say, "Damn straight We put him in his place. Ha Ha!"
Either way,
It is either true or not true, that Sternberg was unfairly treated. This matters not on the person who says so.
MS
Gary Hurd · 20 December 2006
Excellent piece of work. I hope that you can find a way to get this information to reporters for wider coverage.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 20 December 2006
ben · 20 December 2006
Mike · 20 December 2006
Re: Comment #151164
Utterly amazing, isn't it, the way they comment extensively on something that they don't even seem to have read. The complete lack of understanding of the history of science, and how science is done is the thing that keeps me engaged in this issue, for the hope that education might be able to eradicate the attitude.
Pete Dunkelberg · 20 December 2006
Steve Reuland · 20 December 2006
Steve Reuland · 20 December 2006
Here are a couple of more links on Bloch just for fun:
Bloch cancels award for whistleblower turned OSC critic, lies about reason for doing so.
Bloch gives inappropriate fashion advice, turns out to be plagiarist.
Mark Studduck, FCD · 20 December 2006
Wesley R. Elsberry, I agree with your point and it is well taken.
Ben, Nice connection on the Pseudo name. Did you read all of That Hideous Strength? What does the full picture of Mark Studduck look like. From where does he come? What does he go through? And where does he end? That story will tell you why I chose to post under the name Mark Studduck. And no, I'm not Larry.
Mike, Are you a historian of science? If you are, perhaps we'll meet someday at a conference. I'll be going by my real name there. We can discuss the history of science and my basic claim concerning dissenters to the reigning paradigm. I thought everybody knew this. Big famous example: Aristotelian paradigm, adopted by the reigning cultural power (the catholic church,) disagreed with by this one guy who believed the universe and Life to be designed by an intelligent creator whom he identified as the God of the Bible, but didn't think the reigning aristotelian philosophy jivved with his empirical findings and theories. Man, if only I could remeber his name.
Pete Dunkelberg, Your post has something to offer. I agree that the seperate question of "malfeasance by the OSC and allies" is worth looking into. My post was about the logic of the matter. Was Sternberg mistreated or was he not. If he wasn't should he have been. This latter question is to me the most interesting. No one has yet responded to that section of my post. I am curious as to whether anti-ID types would actually approve of biased treatment of a ID friendly but otherwise credentialed scientist.
MS
dlj
Coin · 20 December 2006
Erasmus · 20 December 2006
shoulda, coulda, woulda. other people's ethics are boring.
but coin's point is good. his sense of professionalism is rather lousy.
Raging Bee · 20 December 2006
"Mark:" You know as well as we do that just being a "dissenter to the reigning paradigm" doesn't make one right. Many such "dissenters," in fact, have turned out to be idiots, charlatans, demagogues, and/or whoring their science for a political or economic agenda.
As the old saying goes, they laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown and Lyndon LaRouche.
PS: the fact that you're blathering on in such a muddled way without even trying to discuss the specifics of the case, speaks volumes about your own intellectual honesty.
Alann · 20 December 2006
It is ironic or simply tragic that the findings published by the OSC appear to be questionable material raising concerns about how the publisher has allowed their personal ideology to unethically influence their "editorial" decisions, in defense of a man who is accused of that very behavior.
David B. Benson · 20 December 2006
Don't bother to wonder if the DI wrote the report. They can't write that well...
Flint · 20 December 2006
It's unfortunately possible that the OSC is itself a bad idea; one of those things that looks really good on paper, but that turns out to be a most excellent bully pulpit for ideological grandstanding. Imagine: a lightning rod *desinged* to attract otherwise inaccessible dirt against your enemies, complete with the power and authority to vanish any such dirt against your friends. It would be astonishing if a politician did NOT use such an agency for partisan political purposes.
I hope nobody thinks Bloch's behavior was unexpected by those who placed him in this position. I hope everyone understands that someone of Bloch's known habits and inclinations was carefully sought out, and doubtless many candidates less ideologically committed, were passed over in his favor.
I suggest the past relationship between Souder and Bloch might be worth investigating. They seem to be working more closely together than coincidence might account for...
Gary Hurd · 20 December 2006
Actually, this does not need wider coverage in the news media because this "report" is dead in the water. Five days after its release, the Souder fart has no echo.
Do a Google News. No traction. WingNutDaily- that's all folks!
Saddly, Souder was able to keep his seat even though he can't find his ass. There is no possibility that Scott Bloch will have his current job after January. Based on the trackrecord of the Bushies, the Dem's could fire and/or eliminate funding for a whole lot of conservatives. Are suicides in the offing? At least we should see an upturn in demand for the DC mental health services.
Still, it is good to be ready, so many thanks to Steve.
Coin · 20 December 2006
Mark Studduck, FCD · 20 December 2006
Raging Bee, I agree with you entirely concerning the fact of history which you point out. (Many such "dissenters," in fact, have turned out to be idiots,etc.) Although, strangely, or expectantly, you argued against something I didn't in fact claim. and that is, when you said "just being a "dissenter to the reigning paradigm" doesn't make one right." Your logic is quite sound on that point. A point which I did not make or imply. May I correct your "old saying"?
They laughed at Pasteur, they laughed at Einstein, they praised and upheld the work of Lysenko, they ignored Mendel, and they pretended like the information revolution in biology somehow killed the argument for design. Oh yeah, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Sorry for "blathering on in such a muddled way without even trying to discuss the specifics of the case," I'm just having a bit of fun.
If by specifics, you mean you wanted me to point out that I was refering to Galilleo and the overturning of the Aristotelian Model of Planetary Physics, sorry.
MS
Flint · 20 December 2006
Coin:
What keeps the GAO relatively honest is the OMB, which is the Executive branch equivalent organization. The two are often in conflict, and the OMB tends to be a lot more partisan because the GAO represents both parties, while the OMB represents the President.
What would keep the OSC honest is a more-or-less bipartisan agreement that it serves a useful purpose, and that the purpose needs to be kept relatively non-ideological. Seems clear to me that if there is any agreement about the OSC, it's either that it doesn't (and perhaps) can't cut through the resistance it inevitably faces, or that it serves a better purpose as a pulpit for the party in power than as an agency to weed out wrongdoing.
I recognize that whistle-blowing is inherently an uphill battle; the discrepancy in power between the poor schmuck reporting the problem and the high mucky-muck pulling the stunts has always been too large to overcome *unless* the high mucky-muck is opposed directly by someone of equal power, and the whistle will be grist for the power struggle mill.
Nobody likes a whistle blower. If he's blowing it against someone else, you don't particularly care. If it's against you, you're going to fight it as hard as you can. No checks and balances.
Bettinke, Head Nurse, Tr.San.&Ph. · 20 December 2006
Yust when an old lady of northland descent is about settling in for the season to think starting, the staff to tell me yet another patient has declined their caring are coming!
Mark Drake, or some such, this one is named being...?
Hokey-dokey!
Scott Simmons · 20 December 2006
OSC is officially independent. The Special Counsel is nominated by the President & confirmed by the Senate, but he doesn't seem to serve at the pleasure of the Executive. Hence the presumption of political impartiality. (Yeah, whatever.) Anyway, Hatch was confirmed for a five-year term in 2004, so it looks like even if a Democratic candidate wins the Presidency in 2008, they may be (briefly) stuck with this Bush nominee.
Raging Bee · 20 December 2006
Okay, whatever else we may say about him, Mark is definitely not Larry Farfringinsinthin -- he's at least pretending to be civil, responsive and open-minded, which Larry could never credibly do. What point he's trying to make here is another matter...
Unsympathetic reader · 20 December 2006
Steve Reuland provides a link about Bloch dress code:
Bloch gives inappropriate fashion advice, turns out to be plagiarist.
"And remember, my people --- there is no shame in being poor, only dressing poorly!"
- from "Zorro, the Gay Blade"
Michael Rathbun, FCD · 20 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 20 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 21 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 21 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 21 December 2006
PvM · 21 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 21 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 21 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 21 December 2006
Fellas, There seems to be some animosity towards my picking a fictional character's name as a pseudonym here. Sorry. Like many people here and elsewhere in the blogo-sphere, I chose a name I liked and of which I had some reason for adopting. (kind of like choosing the name Popper's Ghost, or raging bee) Unfortunately, and thank you for pointing this out, I have been misspelling the name. (misspell it once in the NAME: bar to the left and it will come up every time.
The connection made by some of you of my using FCD to the N.I.C.E. (which is a scientistic pawn program of some evil force in the science fiction story That Hideous Strength)is interesting, but not intentional. I actually am an FCD in a very real sense. I do not equate Darwin, his writings, or his ideas, explicitly with modern naturalism and am quite fond of much of his work. Maybe someone would disagree with my putting FCD by my name if it is the case (as it is) that I do not agree 100 percent with Darwin. But, truly no one here agrees with Darwin 100 percent. But I love Darwin's prose, his natural history description and theorizing, his formulation and understanding of selective pressures on populations, and the story of his life. I find him very interesting and admirable. However, I do not use his name or picture as an Icon of naturalism and bow before his name as if he were a saint of my faith or anything like that. If that is what is required of me to place the FCD after my name, well then I will remedy the situation. I guess I could put, I Have Actually Read the Bulk of Darwin's Scientific and Personal Writing. IHARBDSPW. Kind of long, a little bulky. I'll stick with FCD. For it is true.
Oh, and you shouldn't kick me off PT for placing FCD behind my name willy nilly or without permission. You might want to get onto the FCD organization for letting a fictional character so easily sign their role. Popper's ghost, you didn't go check that out? I've been a member for quite some time.( 6 or more months to a year. Can't remember, but there is a chronological by date of joining list at the FCD website.)
How weird of many of you for quibbling over this. Can an FCD not ask a question about Sternberg? All I did was ask a series of questions. And the second question was the one I really wanted to hear some feedback on. (should pro-ID scientists be persecuted in a sense?)
Also, I am referred to as a troll for posting in the fashion I am posting? I'm not sure I understand what makes a troll a troll. I read a post, and post some questions or comments in response. I use a fictional characters name to keep my anonymity. I don't just pat my fellow non trolls on the back or repeat all the same rhetorical attacks and straw man arguments... These are the things which warrant the title troll. BTW, this is the only blog which I post on in any regular sense.
What the hell is going on at PT?,
MS
Mark Studdock, FCD · 21 December 2006
My counterfactual discussion of the answer being "yes" is not intended as a smear. I know some people who, regardless of whether Sternberg was treated poorly or not, believe that he ought to have been fired and removed from the scientific community in general for supporting ID in the way that he did.
If he really did do some unethical things in getting the paper published, I myself think he ought to be punished in some form. But I don't think he should be punished simply for being friendly towards ID and YEC scientists. I do believe that some people, if they were being honest, would say that he did.
MS
Katarina · 21 December 2006
Katarina · 21 December 2006
bob · 21 December 2006
Mark Studduck,
According to the appendix, there are at least two reasons to put Sternberg's butt in a sling. First, he took poor care of specimens. That is an unforgivable sin in museums. He can be the most brilliant taxonomist ever, but if he doesn't take care of the materials entrusted to him, what good is he? Each specimen in a museum represents a not only a taxa, but a representative of that taxa at a particular time and place. These records can never be replaced.
Secondly, he took poor care of the books and articles. On its face that doesn't seem like that great of an offense, but you have to remember that institutions like the SI have rare publication. I work in a similar setting, and I'm willing to bet that we have a lot of the reprints which probably less that a dozen copies still surviving. And a few reprints here are probably the only surviving copy.
Both of these actions show a disrespect for not only the his current co-workers, but for past and future scientist.
Science is rough. Science does not tolerate sloppy work, nor should it. Sternberg allowed a publication that in all rights should not have been published. It contained numerous factual errs. It failed to review relative papers. And above all it skirted the review process. It should be noted that the publication wasn't ID friendly, because it did not contain any positive support for ID, but instead was just rehashed and out-dated arguments against evolution. You can't publish crap and not get called on it.
Finally it is important to know that OSC is not an unbiased organization, but instead a political puppet. It goes to the very claim that Sternberg was treated unfairly. It appears that it is the SI as an institution and the people within that have be treated poorly and unfairly by the OSC and Sternberg.
bob
Mark Studdock, FCD · 21 December 2006
Katrina wrote,
Umm... thanks. How nice and constructive of you.
Bob wrote,
Whether the argument is convincing to you or not, Meyer does make one for ID. The conclusion of his paper is not, "Evolution can't explain the Cambrian information explosion." But is...
"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent."
Meyer is a philosopher of science, and I think his argument is more of a philosophical nature. However, it is an argument which relies heavily upon scientific findings. That is why much of the paper is a survey of various lines of evidence concerning novel body plan appearances and so forth. His argument is to the best explanation. A matter of comparing various theories explanatory power. He argues that only one hypotheses (that of intelligent design) has been observed as a causally adequate explanation of sudden increases of information.
Now, I think this argument is very interesting and certainly worth thinking about... but before you jump on me and tell me to go read the PT rebuttal or rehash something about not reading all the literature or something, I am only here pointing out that I think it is easy to understand how and why this argument is not just against evolutionary naturalism but is in fact formulated in a positive form for ID as a better explanation.
MS
Mark Studdock, FCD · 21 December 2006
Katrina wrote, or rather repeated, some stuff already said by others above
Umm... thanks. How nice and constructive of you.
Bob wrote:
"it did not contain any positive support for ID, but instead was just rehashed and out-dated arguments against evolution."
Whether the argument is convincing to you or not, Meyer does make one for ID. The conclusion of his paper is not, "Evolution can't explain the Cambrian information explosion." But is...
"An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent."
Meyer is a philosopher of science, and I think his argument is more of a philosophical nature. However, it is an argument which relies heavily upon scientific findings. That is why much of the paper is a survey of various lines of evidence concerning novel body plan appearances and so forth. His argument is to the best explanation. A matter of comparing various theories explanatory power. He argues that only one hypotheses (that of intelligent design) has been observed as a causally adequate explanation of sudden increases of information.
Now, I think this argument is very interesting and certainly worth thinking about... but before you jump on me and tell me to go read the PT rebuttal or rehash something about not reading all the literature or something, I am only here pointing out that I think it is easy to understand how and why this argument is not just against evolutionary naturalism but is in fact formulated in a positive form for ID as a better explanation.
MS
Steve Reuland · 21 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 22 December 2006
Steve,
What Meyer seems to be saying is that we have abundant empirical evidence of intelligent agents increasing information or creating new designs. This is part of his positive case for his inference to design. We know what an intelligent agent can do. Namely, specify complexity. And from observing the intelligent agents we can study (human beings) and comparing their products with the products which nature can lay claim to creating on it's own (rock formations by wind and erosion for example, or to give a biological example, environmental pressures selecting which members of a population will pass on their genes and which will not and thus the gradual variation and genetic change over time so abundantly witnessed in biogeographical studies.) Meyer also examines other possible naturalistic mechanisms for producing information (namely, specific amino acid sequences and so forth) such as self organization. He compares the causal adequacy of these various causal possibilities and concludes that we have empirically observed only one type of cause able to produce specified complexity or increases in information. He uses the Cambrian Explosion as an example of an explosion of information. He doesn't use the Cambrian explosion simply because it is a problem for evolution. He uses it as an example of an example of a vast amount of information (all those different cell types) coming about geologically sudden in the history of our world.
In response to,
"When has it ever been observed that an "intelligence" has created a living organism?"
Although it is utterly amazing the things which man makes, your right, we have not yet designed anything near as complex as biological life. None of the ID theorists are arguing specifically that a human being created a living organism. But, humans are an example of an "intelligence" and
In response to,
"What evidence establishes that such an "intelligence" existed during the Cambrian?"
Well, the simple answer here is that...wait a minute...Hello, that's what Meyer's paper was all about. The Increase in information, the cell types, you know...the CSI. Evidence of an "intelligence." Honestly, you got to understand at least this about the argument being made by ID theorists.
Maybe I can help. Think about this: Say you were a mechanic and one day upon re-entering your shop after a short lunch break, you found a large number of various new automobiles and other strange new never before seen devices, that all appeared to have been constructed from various spare parts you had left lying around the shop. Would you think that (A) inherent potentialities to the shop made the new machines, (B) that natural laws in combinations with various environmental happenings created the new machines, (C) that some other mechanic or a group of mechanics made them, or (D) some even higher intelligence than an ordinary mechanic (because the speed at which they were made, their originality, etc,) somehow (even though it was unknown to you how) made them.
My guess is that even a regular poster at PT would think only option (C) or (D) would be possible candidates for the cause. Why is that? Because (C) and (D) are causally adequate explanations. Why is that? Not because we saw the humans or the "higher intelligence" doing the designing, but simply because they are "intelligences."
MS
Steve Reuland · 22 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 22 December 2006
A very simplified version (I'm tired and going bed soon) of the inference to the best explanation argument for ID, refuting the above post concerning circular reasoning and a premise being derived from a conclusion.
Premise 1: The Cambrian Explosion Data is X. (X being the sudden appearance of many phyla, meaning many cell types, meaning much information)
Premise 2: There are various causal explanations available for X.
They are EN, SO, ID
Premise 3: EN has not been observed to Produce X.
Premise 4: SO has not been observed to Produce X.
Premise 5: ID has been observed to Produce X
Therefore: ID is the best observable cause of X given in the Cambrian Explosion.
Steve, don't get confused here. I am not writing in reply to your statement about Meyers being "completely wrong about the ability of natural causes to increase information." I am here writing in opposition to your claim that you "understand Meyer's argument perfectly well." and that it is "good old fashioned circular reasoning."
MS
Wesley R. Elsberry · 22 December 2006
Katarina · 22 December 2006
Katarina · 22 December 2006
Excuse me, As for your cars and mechanic...
Scarlet Seraph, FOAFOCD · 22 December 2006
Richard Simons · 22 December 2006
Mark Studduck says "Premise 5: ID has been observed to Produce X" where X is "the sudden appearance of many phyla".
Oh? When? Unless you mean during the 'Cambrian explosion', which is what you are trying to demonstrate.
Mark is sounding more and more like Afdave.
Steve Reuland · 22 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 22 December 2006
Thank you for your continuing comments. Some of them are very helpful to me. Thanks to Wesley Elsberry for passing me on to a good paper worth reading. It is an interesting idea, distinguishing ordinary design from design in general. I think ID people do not distinguish the two and rather believe that there is some general discernable category that they both fall under. I hope to read Dr. Elsberry's paper soon. And I'm sure it will come up elsewhere if I remain posting at PT.
Some of the other comments are helpful as well. But, simply being told that I don't understand or being identified as some other past user whom you guys eventually chased off, is not going to convince me that my understanding is weak or my arguments are de facto fallacious.
In Response to Steve,
Premise 5: ID has been observed to Produce X. Is being observed all the time. (the above objection, that no it is not because ID is not applicable to intelligent agents who are Human Beings, as I have said above might be helpful, but it also might be a rabbit trail...) But, anytime a human being makes new things or writes new ideas and so forth, there is an increase in information, design, and I think a quite fitting analogy to the X given in the above simplified argument structure.
Katarina, Will you help me with my Mechanic and his discovered new machines analogy. It isn't supposed to be a direct analogy of the Cambrian explosion exactly but an example of what would be thought of as possible explanations of such a dramatic increase in design when observed by an intelligent agent. You seem to have written something concerning how it doesn't work but accidentally deleted it before you posted.
Scarlet Seraph, FOAFOCD,
You specified complexity when you wrote your post. You had before you a keyboard with the English alphabet on it and you specifically chose and arranged the letters before you into a complex and meaningful sequence which other designers could then read.
Friend of a friend of Charles Darwin. Man you are missing out. You need to meet the guy yourself. If you have read all his primary literature, I suggest you now go and read Adrian Desmond's excellent Biography.
MS
Bettinke, Head Nurse, Tr.San.&Ph. · 22 December 2006
Crouching over, looking under things, lifting up the skirts covering the legs of the comfortable chairs in the PT lounge:
"Markie, Markie! Here, little Markie...! Out come, out come, wherever are you!"
MarkP · 22 December 2006
ben · 22 December 2006
Katarina · 22 December 2006
Steviepinhead · 22 December 2006
You can get to the site.
You can comment on the site.
Your comments actually appear.
Yay-whee!
But the main page still says Katarina commented after ben's comment, and four attempts to read Katarina's comment--even with deleting files and refreshing, and running back and forth between main and comment pages--still fails to produce Katarina's comment.
Did a time warp get installed alongside all that other new gear? And why waste a time warp on PT, when you could be scouting the andromeda galaxy, or sampling the abiogenesis process in exquisite detail?
Just sayin'...
Glen Davidson · 22 December 2006
Steviepinhead · 22 December 2006
Ah, there Katarina is!
But I'm not sure we want me commenting between every other comment just so's I can read them all.
As hard as it can be to tell at times, some days I just don't have all that much to say...
Popper's ghost · 22 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 22 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 22 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 22 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 22 December 2006
BTW, the "argument" offered by the troll (and he clearly is one from his name, just as someone calling himself "Saddam Hussein, FCD" would clearly be a troll) is not at all dependent on Meyer's evidence, or any evidence. In essence it's
1: humans can produce CSI
2: therefore "an intelligence" can produce CSI
3: nothing else is known to be able to produce CSI
4: biodiversity requires CSI
5: therefore "an intelligence" is the best explanation for biodiversity
He apparently actually takes this argument seriously. Ok, go ahead and laugh.
neo-anti-luddite · 22 December 2006
Steve Reuland · 23 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 23 December 2006
MarkP,
My Analogy wasn't meant to prove ID, but rather to prove that the argument given by Meyer was in a reasonable, understandable, and non-circular form. I know that analogies don't prove anything but help explain arguments. That, if you will go back and read why I formed the analogy in the first place, was what I was up to. And you are on my side then by saying, "I grant you without reservation that it is a good analogy for what you are saying."
Glen Davidson,
Linnaeus was able to understand organisms as related with homologies, similar molecular body parts, etc within a nested hierarchy within the framework of ID. Yes, he believed as a matter of scientific conclusion that nature and its many varied and wondrous (similar and different) designed organisms were the product of Mind.(<----- that was a causal agent)
Also, X in the argument doesn't stand for "Cambrian explosion" but...from comment 151399"(X being the sudden appearance of many phyla, meaning many cell types, meaning much information)"
The rest of your post stands upon this misunderstanding or purposeful misrepresentation.
Popper's ghost,
Thank you for following and understanding my mechanic analogy. I myself would have suspected C. You see, rarely would I suspect option D. But you see, your choosing C for the mechanic is rational for the analogy because it is obviously taking place at a time in History in which human mechanics are present. No human Mechanics (or unintelligent robots which you mentioned) were present during the Cambrian. So choosing C over A or B, would put you much closer to choosing D as causal explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.
The rests of your comments in your various posts trouble me not. Although, it's not very nice to call people stupid or troll without actually having a good reason. This concern of my placing FCD after my name was already dealt with and we moved on. But if you want to have a contest about who is a better friend of Mr. Darwin that would be fun. And you seem so affected. Don't get to upset over this, everything is going to be okay.
neo-anti-luddite,
Your statement that "the pre-enlightenment Catholic church persecuted Galileo for disagreeing with its worldview; ergo, we should listen to a bunch of religious fundamentalists, instead?" is sadly trivial and not worth much of a reply but since I am already wasting my time....
Galileo was originally brought up in these posts as an example of a dissenter to a dominant paradigm vigorously held by the scientific community. He was treated unfairly not because he thought the Bible wasn't true or accurate or God's word. He was not treated unfairly because he thought the universe produced itself without the active hand of a designing intelligence. He was persecuted for disbelieving, and forcefully rejecting the current paradigm for cosmological physics. He challenged Aristotelianism.
Now, the Aristotelian scientific understanding had been adopted an inseminated into the Catholic Church so much so that they even read it's understanding of the natural world into the Bible. You can say that they made Aristotle's views almost canonical, that is dogma. Today, the reigning social force in the western world is not the Catholic Church but is instead some form of general secular humanism. The reigning biological paradigm adopted and canonized by this consensus is the naturalistic paradigm of science with it's creation story of evolution by various non-intelligent mechanisms. Any scientist who questions or challenges this reigning dogma is thus treated unfairly. Which brings us back to the original topic of this post.
MS
Popper's ghost · 23 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 23 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 23 December 2006
neo-anti-luddite · 23 December 2006
MarkP · 23 December 2006
Wesley R. Elsberry · 23 December 2006
Mark Studdock, FCD · 23 December 2006
PG, evolution was "present" at the Cambrian Explosion. Well, not if you are refering to it as if it were some disembodied intelligence or thing or whatever, but sure "evolution" was present. Don't worry about whether I am an evolutionist, I assure that I am. I do agree that since their were animals, environmental presures, and DNA transcription and translation, and all, well, yeah...evolution was present. Of course the process of natural selection was at work during the Cambrian period in the same way that it is at work today. It is a process which is at work anywhere and anytime that designed organisms are alive and active in an environment. Evolution is like a natural law intrinsic to the designed biological world. Am I old school in the belief that evolution can't explain where evolution came from. Am I wrong to think that there are certain necessities (Such as, the ability of an organism to pass on genetic information to it's offspring) involved before evolution can even start to work.
Now, the rest of your posts amount to your telling me that:
I am a Moron. (which is cute of you, but the real problem you have with me is that we don't have the same faith and religious devotion to the current reaigning scientistic world view.)
That I don't qualify as "an intelligence" according to my own writing concerning intelligence. (Which is absurd and patently false.)
That I care nothing for reason and logic. (lets just say that if you want to debate, or discuss anything with anyone else in the future you shouldn't resort so quickly to this last ditch tactic of telling the person you are communicating with that they reject the laws of thinking. It's kind of pathetic to move so quickly away from an argument into an unfounded attack upon the person sitting at a computer a hundred miles away from you...How very PT or UD in style of you.)
Then you tell me I'm stupid again, and that this current post further proves it. (good argument. BTW I don't think you are stupid. It just seems to me that you have chosen to be 100 percent sure and devoted to something so completely that you can't even talk to people who disagree with you. You can't assess their statements as true or false outside of judging them solely upon whther they do or do not seem to buttress your own world view. You may be a little hateful, and biligerent to people, and maybe a little closeminded, but you are probably not stupid. Maybe the only other thing I could say concerning the attributes of your person from the limited evidence I read here is that you are immature. You may one day grow up to be able to talk to people on the other side of the fence.)
Then you called me a Troll and told me that I have ignored some arguments and so forth. (well, I have asked exactly what makes a troll a troll, and believe that I have contended to a satisfactory manner that I am not in fact a troll. Some people apparently have decided that I, although they still disagree with me and argue against my post, am not a troll, but instead refer to me somewhat politely by my username Mark.)
Then amidst some more name-calling you ask something constructive concerning post #151505. Your argument was that my argument could be reformulated as.
"1: humans can produce CSI
2: therefore "an intelligence" can produce CSI
3: nothing else is known to be able to produce CSI
4: biodiversity requires CSI
5: therefore "an intelligence" is the best explanation for biodiversity"
Then you asked me to either agree that #151505 is my argument or correct it so that it is. Then you could explain exactly why it is so IDiotic and then laugh at me. I will try to carry out your request. But I am going to type it straight through and not spend all day making this submittable to a philosophical journal or anything, so give me some leeway with the language. I have really got to get out to the mall and buy some last minute gifts.
1. Intelligent Agents can produce CSI
2. Humans are Intelligent Agents.
3. They are regularly observed Intelligent Agents.
4. Even if we do not observer their existence at a given time and place, if we find CSI we generally assume that Human Intelligent agents were present and responsible for the CSI observed. (an example of this would come from archaeology and the discovery of ancient and unknown writing and so forth)
5. CSI can be an indicator of the presence of an Intelligent Agent. (from 1-4)
6. We generally assume that CSI is a reliable indicator of the presence of Human Intelligent Agents.
7. There may or may not be other Intelligent Agents.
8. Other Intelligent Agents may or may not specify complexity in a similar and understandable human-like way.
9. Other intelligent agents may be of a higher intelligence or lower intelligence. Their basic attributes, ability, properties, and so forth may be otherwise unknown to us while the theoretical possibility of detecting their intelligent agency may be possible by detecting CSI. (from 1-4)
10. Given these possibilities (from 5-9) we human intelligent agents attempt to or theoretically could discover CSI from a non-human intelligent agent. (ie SETI, ID,)
11. CSI is a reliable indicator for intelligent design. (not this argument but dembski argument) Intelligent design is causally explanative of CSI.
12. Evolutionary Naturalism and it's various mechanisms and theories has not been, or has not yet been shown to account for CSI.
13. Self-Organization theories and various similar ideas have not been, or have not yet been shown to account for CSI.
13. The Cambrian Explosion happened at a time when there were no human intelligent agents present.
14. The Cambrian Explosion displays a very early insertion of vast amounts of new CSI.
15. If we are to attribute the CSI encountered in the Cambrian explosion to a cause, we must use abductive reasoning. (inference to the best explanation)
16. From 1-11, 12, 13, and 14, we can argue that Intelligent Design is the best current explanation of the CSI of the Cambrian explosion.
Many of these premises of course require further argument (as is true of most arguments) and thus require the research project of Intelligent Design. And I will admit this is a very rough and quickly jotted out argument but it is in reply to your request. I have tried to point out the difference between your misrepresentation or misunderstanding here by showing why and how an ID theorist might move from a human IDer to a theoretically possible IDer.
You then return to name calling and statement making. I call the theory of evolution a creation story because that is exactly what it is. It's being true or false has nothing to do with whether it is a story about how things are created. Since I am taking too much time out to deal with your insults already I will recommend you read "Species of Origin. America's Search for a Creation Story" by Giberson and Yerxa. I was first turned on to this book by an advertisement on the NCSE web page. Excellent work.
Responding Now to neo-anti-luddite,
I hardly feel like it is necessary to quibble with you over the Galileo affair. My explanation given above is the standard and currently accepted interpretation. I will not persecute you for not understanding the important cultural and societal trappings of Galileo's time. But your question concerning why it is valid to relate the way the Catholic Aristotelians (properly understood as such for they were far more committed to this dogma than to the Christian Bible) treated Galileo to the actions of modern scientists is worth a response. I do not think as you said that I implied, "that a "dominant paradigm" is always defended in the exact same way, every single time, in every culture and historical period?" But the similarity among all paradigm challenges throughout time is that those scientists entrenched in the current and challenged orthodoxy do not readily discourse properly of fairly with their dissenters. Examples abound. I would suggest a read or probably a re-read of Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Response to MarkP,
Excellent catch. Your right I concede. My wording was quite poor. I should have written "My Analogy wasn't meant to prove ID, but rather to show how or illustrate why the argument given by Meyer was in a reasonable, understandable, and non-circular form. I know that analogies don't prove anything but only help explain arguments.
But going from this to accuse me of picking up a poor trait from religious speakers. And then telling me that Scientists don't use analogies to explain their theories. WOW. I will remember that every time I read a scientists analogy. Oh wait, I don't have to make an argument here because one of the higher ups at PT agree with me. (comment above by Wesley Elsberry)
Well, it has been fun being the only one on this side of things. I wish I had clones to go do the Christmas Shopping (ooops I mean, holiday or winterish shopping, I know how sensitive some of you anti-religionists get, just kidding around) I need to do. God bless you all richly this Christmas. I'll get back on PT after I am through celebrating the birth of Christ with my family and friends here in a few days.
MS
Torbjörn Larsson · 23 December 2006
A wellconstructed analogy can be (more or less) isomorph in the studied domain.
Isomorphism (mathematics), informally: "The word "isomorphism" applies when two complex structures can be mapped onto each other, in such a way that to each part of one structure there is a corresponding part in the other structure, where "corresponding" means that the two parts play similar roles in their respective structures. [my bold]
...
Isomorphisms are frequently used by mathematicians to save themselves work. If a good isomorphism can be found from a relatively unknown part of mathematics into some well studied division of mathematics, where many theorems are already proved, and many methods are already available to find answers, then the function can be used to map whole problems out of unfamiliar territory over to "solid ground," where the problem is easier to understand and work with."
Darwin's example seems to fit in these regards. By analogy, of course. :-)
Torbjörn Larsson · 23 December 2006
Since I forgot to connect my comment with a quote, and there is some trolling going on, let me note that my previous comment was only responding to comment #151615 by Wesley.
neo-anti-luddite · 23 December 2006
Popper's ghost · 23 December 2006
Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 24 December 2006
Scarlet Seraph, FOFOCD · 24 December 2006
Popper's Ghost · 25 December 2006
Glen Davidson · 26 December 2006