Follow the money: more Dembski/Baylor-related mischief?

I'm still curious about this thing. Still doesn't smill right.

Why would Dembski, a professor at another institution, take a "post-doc" position in engineering, for any reason? Wouldn't any work he might have done have more credibility published as an interdisciplinary work between two institutions?

It just doesn't smell right, still. There's another shoe yet to drop on this.

This grant and the invitation to work with Prof. Marks was entirely at his initiative.

— Dembski

What surprised me so far is how Dembski is making such a big deal of Baylor protecting its good name while not having raised the issue of Baylor having returned the grant for almost nine months.
Now I understand, a bit of digging would have been to embarrassing. Nice research.

Of course, despite all this, Dembski's admissions that his work so far was hardly as solid as some had led to believe is interesting, of course, will the new 'papers' address the many shortcomings of ID? I doubt it.

Do people still remember ISCID which was nothing more than a POBox address in Pennsylvania? ID is funny in its desperate attempts to pretend it has some scientific credibilities.

There’s another shoe yet to drop on this.

and no doubt that shoe has already tred in some brown smelly stuff.

LOL, it is just so unexpected. . .

Not exactly on subject but for what its worth I just learned that Dembski will be speaking at the University of Oklahoma (just minutes from my home). The following is information provided to me via email.

According to posters seen around the OU Campus, Dembski will speak on 17 September at 7 PM in Meacham Auditorium (OU Memorial Union) on "Why Atheism is no Longer Intellectually Fulfilling: The Challenge of Intelligent Design to Unintelligent Evolution."

An apparently new group called "Pursuit College Ministry" is hosting the event. The OU Pursuit College Ministry (motto on web page: "living the divine paradox, Psalm 42:1-2") is a student organization with close ties to Trinity Baptist Church in Norman. Although the organization is an approved student group (apparently eligible for University funding),
the close relationship with a particular church, Trinity Baptist, may be unusual for such groups. The web site links to an 'after church" item that states that the group meets at Trinity every Sunday and the group's web site links directly to the site for Trinity.

Seen here

The President of Pursuit College Ministry is Andrew Jennings and the Faculty Advisor is Dr. Larry Toothaker, statistics professor in
Psychology. Toothaker is an ID advocate who attempted to teach a course on the subject last year, but opposition from faculty members resulted in plans for the course being dropped. With Toothaker as the advisor, it is not surprising that they are pushing ID. Their stated objectives: "Equipping college students to pursue God, pursue authentic community with the body of Christ, and pursue the lost for Christ."

Dixon has the right to give his money to anyone he wants to, and the Biologic Institute has the right to hire whom they choose. But where's the science in all this?

Does Dixon have a degree or work experience in biology? Were his former donations to hospitals for specified medical research projects?

Does anyone know anything about Dixon's personal religious beliefs? Were the missions he contributed to strictly homeless shelters, or were they centers for evangelical Christian proselytizing? And is he associated with Christian dominionism, like other major contributors to the Discovery Institute?

I can't see that any laws were broken. But I do find it strange that the Disco Institute is reporting this as a normal scientific grant. If the ID proponents have nothing to hide, why do they keep hiding?

Just to be clear, I agree with hoary puccoon 100% with regard to the money. The problem here is not where the money comes from per se. As long as laws aren't broken, Marks and Dembski have the right to seek funding wherever they can find it, in whatever form they can get it (grant, gift, endowment, etc), Baylor has the right to accept funding for their faculty from whatever source they wish, and the Lifeworks Foundation can give their money to whoever they damn please.

The alluded "mischief" here is for Dembski to present this as a run-of-the-mill research grant from some "foundation", or as the DI EN&V blog put it "an outside organization", without coming clean about the source of the money. If they had simply said something like "Marks secured funding from a Discovery Institute-friendly donor" I would have found no problem with it whatsoever.

Indeed, I have long advocated that the DI itself should give their money to ID "scientists" willing to write up competitive grant applications (to be fair, they actually even tried to do some science-funding a while ago, namely for Doug Axe's project), rather than overwhelmingly to lawyers and PR hacks as they currently seem to be doing. Alas, it looks like the DI head honchos consider their lawyers and PR hacks a more productive investment than their scientists.

He will preach at Trinity Sunday morning and then make several presentations at OU during the rest of his time in Norman.

Make no mistake about it, our goal for this project is not to win a debate or to simply present an alternative worldview. Our prayer for this entire effort is for God to open doors so the power of His gospel would be made known to groups of people who need to hear the truth. The issues of intelligent design and evolution are far greater than simply differing perspectives about science. The overall issue is one explaining the world in which we live. Another issue, Naturalism, eliminates God from the equation and thus affects every other part of life. That makes this issue one of vital gospel importance!

It is never cheap to make this kind of gospel investment. We have many expenses such as speaker honorarium and expenses, facility rentals at OU, meals, lodging, promotion, advertising, etc. The goal that Trinity has set is $5,000.

{"For heaven's sake people, THIS IS A P-A-R-O-D-Y!!}

Yeah, and when Dembski talks of "press coverage" of the controversy he is referring to posts on evolutionnews.org, and postings by DO'L on UD.com! Pomp!

The lab’s scope of research is described on evolutionaryinformatics.org (now hosted by a third party):

Rimpal: Did you mean "pomp" or "pimp?

[yawn] Just more adventures fromm the Wizard of ID. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!

The issues of intelligent design and evolution are far greater than simply differing perspectives about science. The overall issue is one explaining the world in which we live. Another issue, Naturalism, eliminates God from the equation and thus affects every other part of life.

Got to give Demski some credit here. He is a big fish in a small and rather murky pond, the pseudoscience swamp. Milton said it centuries ago, "It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven."

Looks like one can make a reasonably profitable living pushing bafflegab nonsense. Real scientists have to keep coming up with real and tangible results in the real world. It isn't always easy.

J-dog; I mean Pomp of course - all that is left of Dembski 10 years after.

And Raven, Dembski is such a pathetic little whiner; how could you ever compare him to Milton's Lucifer?

Alas, it looks like the DI head honchos consider their lawyers and PR hacks a more productive investment than their scientists.

The problem here is not where the money comes from per se. As long as laws aren’t broken, Marks and Dembski have the right to seek funding wherever they can find it, in whatever form they can get it (grant, gift, endowment, etc), Baylor has the right to accept funding for their faculty from whatever source they wish, and the Lifeworks Foundation can give their money to whoever they damn please.

Biologic Institute on Wikipedia.

*scratches head* See, now that's what I would have expected to see. I wonder why I didn't see that when I tried to search for it. Sorry about that :)

Coin,

As penance, you can edit the Wiki page to correct some inaccuracies.

For instance, the entry states that Biologic is funded by DI and cites a NYT article by Kenneth Chang. However, Chang only mentions that DI funded Douglas Axe. According to New Scientist, that happened when Axe was a postdoc in Cambridge.

Now we know that it's the other way around: DI has received substantial funding from a guy working at Biologic. I think the entry ought to be corrected.

Re "Alas, it looks like the DI head honchos consider their lawyers and PR hacks a more productive investment than their scientists."

That seems logical, considering that their lawyers and PR staff are actually doing lawyer and PR type work.

Henry

However, what is clear is that the “grant” awarded to Marks for his work looks suspiciously like the result of a personal agreement between long-time friends and associates, rather than of a competitive application process as are the vast majority of research grants from public or private agencies to academic scientists. Did Marks actively seek out Lifeworks as a funding source, and did he know about the connections between the Foundation and the DI?

The alluded “mischief” here is for Dembski to present this as a run-of-the-mill research grant from some “foundation”, or as the DI EN&V blog put it “an outside organization”, without coming clean about the source of the money. If they had simply said something like “Marks secured funding from a Discovery Institute-friendly donor” I would have found no problem with it whatsoever.

Clearly this LifeWorks Foundation was a private foundation. The grantors of these types of foundations don’t have to have any application process at all and are free to make grants to whomever they wish, as long as the recipients meet the qualifications established by the IRS, which clearly Baylor does. It matters not one whit if Dembski and Allen or Marks and Allen are friends or not.

The first Big Lie. The fundies always have a few. Methodological Naturalism also known as science doesn’t eliminate god from the equation. Science simply declares the supernatural as out of bounds, being beyond the reach of our senses and instruments and is neutral about it.

The other Big Lie. “The issues of intelligent design and evolution are far greater than simply differing perspectives about science.” This isn’t at all about differing perspectives about science. It is about something true and proven and important to our material well being versus some pseudoscience based on a few pages of 4,000 year old bronze age mythology.

It is moderately clear from original context and made crystal clear by Andrea’s comments here that she is not talking about whether or not what LifeWorks did was legal.

I had a postdoctoral grant, procured by Bob, back in 2006, which President Lilley nixed. I was paid about 1 mos. part time salary in November 2006 and then for 1 week of December.

DonaldM the supernatural ghost expert: Methodical Naturalism (MN) is not “known as science.”... Deleted nonsense... Perhaps you could share how came by this knowledge, since it clearly wasn’t through science.

From talkorigins.org: The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

The only “mischief” here was done by the Baylor administration…again! First Dembski, then Beckwith and now Marks. Baylor continues to give itself black eyes.

Methodical Naturalism (MN) is not “known as science.” MN is an arbitrary constraint upon scientific practice that supposedly protects science from some ill-defined possibility of deviating into the supernatural or metaphysics. The claim that the “supernatural is out of bounds” is itself not a scientific statement, by your own definition, because it would be beyond the reach of science and MN to determine whether or not the supernatural is, in fact, beyond the reach of our senses. Perhaps you could share how came by this knowledge, since it clearly wasn’t through science.

Contrary to what you write here, MN is virtually indistinguisable from PN, something which even some anti-ID Darwinists, like Massimo Pigliucci, have stated.

DonaldM It is very much about differing perspective about science. Either intelligence played a part in bringing about the existence of the cosmos or it didn’t. Either intelligence played a part in bringing into existence biological systems on planet earth or it didn’t. We have no scientific basis upon which to claim we know that it did or it didn’t. However, defining science in such a way that intelligence is eliminated from consideration before the investigation begins does not constitute scientific confirmation that intelligence did not.

DonaldM "However, defining science in such a way that intelligence is eliminated from consideration before the investigation begins...

True, but the implication is that something improper took place. The word “miscief” was used. I’m making clear that that is simply not the case.

Wells, well said. ID has tried before to 'publish' 'scientific' papers relevant to ID (ISCID) and we all know how big a success this was. By linking to a new Evolutionary Information Lab at Baylor, and the many publications by Marks, ID can pretend to have some veil of respectability. Of course, in the end they will still ignore the many problems with ID, raised by its opponents and pretend that the lack of actual research and progress is due to those mean Darwinists.

ID is fundamentally scientifically vacuous and until this is fixed, ID will remain a minor curiosity, desperately looking for some respectability. Sometimes I am not surprised that people like Sal are attracted to ID.

Baylor continues to give itself black eyes.

Well researchers will do a lot to get funds. I must admit the Stanford professor who bought three strip clubs intending to use their profits to fund his research has a certain double takeness about it.

Anyway it should be interesting to find out why Baylor returned the money. What were the conditions on the grant?

OT, but isn't about time a PT contributor did a thread on the history of "achievement" of James Kennedy?

I think it would be a great idea to post a history of what his movement has attempted to accomplish, and the lies, subterfuge, and terrorist tactics used in order to promote their goals.

summarizing all the threads about the darwin-hitler crap would be a good start, since that was Kennedy's most recent "crowning achievement" for television.

I have to go with Erp on this one. Much stranger, sleazier sources of funding are to be found out there, and no one raises an eyebrow. Check out the following website:

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2001/11/16/stanfordsStripClubGenius

//[On Sept. 5, 2001, Prof. Stertzer made a striking foray in his quest for medical advancement. If you are still reading this, you might ask: how did he do this? Ladies and gentlemen, he opened three strip clubs in Las Vegas. Not just for fun, mind you. The clubs — or Institutes of Ethnographic Studies, as we like to call them — would provide the funding for his cardiovascular research.

You may be confused. You may think you read wrong. You may not know how to read at all. But let it be proclaimed, once again, with trumpeting fanfare: one of our own, in this academic family, opened strip clubs to fund his research. In the words of the genius himself: “Whatever will provide cash flow will do.’’ Word.]//

How do we know, anyway, that Lifeworks was set up with the primary intention of providing funding for intelligent design research? It could be, no?, that it was originally set up, at least in part, for other purposes (with a considerable amount of cash going to charities). Even if Lifeworks was established only to provide capital for Marks, how is this wrong? Is it worse than getting funding from strip clubs, like certain Stanford profs do? Does it justify Baylor's action in removing his website and returning the grant money, for whatever reason? This is probably the best case for discrimination the DI can muster, and on the face of it, it looks convincing.

How about Marks' actual research? Has anyone read his three papers for review? Can anyone assess their scholarly merit? Is he producing pseudo-science or is he actually contributing to a legitimate problem/area of research?

It's not whether a concept is natural or supernatural that matters, it's whether or not that concept provides an explanation for some set of repeatable verifiable observations or measurements.

Henry

Donald M; Either intelligence played a part in bringing about the existence of the cosmos or it didn’t. Either intelligence played a part in bringing into existence biological systems on planet earth or it didn’t.

If funding sources were clearly and unambiguously identified, one might get the impression that intelligent design is entirely a Discovery Institute promotion.

Gee, they have that Wikipedia page slated for deletion. Now I wonder why that is and who complained...?

Why is it that all this reactionary-futurist ID stuff is centered around Seattle and Redmond? Is there some sort of ephemeral Microsoft connection here? I'm not suggesting an official connection, but there seems to be some sort of reactionary-futurist right-wing cultural milieu here. Anyone around the area want to scratch the surface on this one?

Before you get hot under the collar, stop throwing around a meaningless placeholder such as intelligence. The scientific definition of intelligence does not lend itself in any way to being a part of your fantasy scenario either at th ebeginning of the universe or now.

— rimpal

Dembski wants to be able to point to ID research coming out of Baylor. “Research” sounds like science, and Baylor is the closest he’s been able to get to academic respectability. This connection evidently means enough to him that he’d rather wrangle a postdoc with a pittance and a broom-closet office at Baylor than be a collaborating scientist or co-PI from his own institution. (They can’t be any too pleased about this arrangement either, nor that one of their own professors would prefer to present a public face as a Baylor post-doc rather than as a Whatevertheheckitis professor, but those are other stories.)

— N. Wells

I don’t understand why this is necessary.

Cut you off, Neal? This is not a creationist/ID website, where you have to remove cogent criticisms in case they persuade someone to move to the dark side. Truth-seeking people enjoy seeing a bit of looney ranting. In general, it only gets removed when it takes up so much space that it interferes with the process of people trying to have a more sensible discussion.

Harold to Donald M:
"How ironic that the likes of you should show up just as lawyers and PR hacks were being mentioned."

Yeah, I noticed that, too. An unbiased expert on grants, who just happens to have some very confused ideas about science, shows up for the first time here with a polished defense of Wm A Dembski and a snarky comment about Baylor. No connection to ID that I can see. Nope. Just cruised the web and stumbled onto PT, didn't you, Donnie, baby?

(Um, to spell this out, the point of this thread, Donald, was that a very small band of people are trying to look like a major movement. And your behavior, rather than convincing us otherwise, further confirms that hypothesis.)

2nd post in a row, on a completely different topic.

Raven says: "Some say that if we could study the supernatural it wouldn’t be the supernatural. So far this is a moot point."

It's a moot point or not, depending how you look at it. Erwin Shrodinger and Max Delbruck, legendary scientists, both trained in physics, independently hypothesized that the study of cell chemistry would discover new laws of physics. That's about as close as a physicist could come to saying, "We'll discover the supernatural."

Nobody ostracized Shrodinger or Delbruck for their implicit challenge to "naturalism." On the contrary, ambitious researchers went into the field of cell chemistry expressly hoping to overturn the established view. The result was, they discovered that very large molecules (e.g., proteins and nucleic acids) obeyed the same laws of chemistry and physics as any other molecules. So "naturalism" was an experimental result, not a presupposition.

I vaguely remember that "methodological naturalism" was one of the tests the courts use (along with "published in peer-reviewed journals") for defining science for the purpose of teaching in US public schools. In practice, I can't think of a single scientist I've ever known who would abandon a promising line of research because it got too close to the supernatural.

To bring this back to my previous post, it's the "lawyers and PR hacks" who worry about naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Not the scientists.

Comment #205263 Posted by Donald M on September 8, 2007 4:18 PM (e) Clearly this LifeWorks Foundation was a private foundation. The grantors of these types of foundations don’t have to have any application process at all and are free to make grants to whomever they wish, as long as the recipients meet the qualifications established by the IRS, which clearly Baylor does. It matters not one whit if Dembski and Allen or Marks and Allen are friends or not. It is sometimes (though not often) the case with private foundations that the granters approach the potential recipient first because they’ve heard of a specific project or cause in which they have an interest. In short there’s nothing out of the ordinary or “fishy” here. I see nothing suspicious in the 990 either…looks just like the hundreds of others I’ve looked at over the years. I know of a few private foundations that believed so strongly in something that they opted to give from their corpus and not just the earnings of their foundation. If Allen wanted to reduce his principle by $500k to support the DI, more power to him. Allen may have had personal financial reasons to give away the foundation. That’s between him, his CPA and the IRS.

Nobody ostracized Shrodinger or Delbruck for their implicit challenge to “naturalism.” On the contrary, ambitious researchers went into the field of cell chemistry expressly hoping to overturn the established view. The result was, they discovered that very large molecules (e.g., proteins and nucleic acids) obeyed the same laws of chemistry and physics as any other molecules. So “naturalism” was an experimental result, not a presupposition.

— puccoon

Sorry to spam the comments, but one last thing about challenges to naturalism.

Try telling a theologist, priest, or any other religious thinker the following: "Sure there might be a God, but we have no hope of ever understanding what God is all about or what his/her/it's intentions are. God is fundamentally beyond all human comprehension, and all your religious beliefs are merely weak and falliable human attempts to understand the ineffable. We will never know what happens after you die, how we might obtain any kind of salvation, or even if such a thing exists. We aren't capable of understanding the truth, so just give up."

They'll all counter that no, their religion offers a way of actually understanding God. Father, son, holy ghost, redemption on the cross, whatever.

When IDists tell scientists that a mysterious black-box intelligence *must* have been necessary to bring about or evolve life, they are saying this about the origin/evolution of life question. They are saying "try as you might, you will never understand."

Of *course* you'll get ostracised from science for saying that! You'd get kicked out of seminary for saying the former! Saying that someone's field is impotent is not a good way to ingratiate yourself.

So ID is the fundies' Maginot Line, then?

Erm, no, I guess not. That would put the march of science in a bad light, wouldn't it. Never mind.

Adam Ierymenko says,

"by saying that something is likely supernatural, you’re not saying that it involves mechanisms we don’t understand. What you’re saying is that we can never and will never understand the mechanism in any normal way. If the assertion that something must be supernatural is accepted, it stops science."

Okay, I get it now. If cell chemists looked for new laws of physics, that wasn't exploring the supernatural, because they were still doing science. So Donald M's complaint isn't that scientists don't look for the supernatural-- it's that they DO look for the supernatural, because as soon as they find it, it isn't supernatural any more.

So basically we're being told that the Dark Ages were really great times because look at all those gorgeous cathedrals they built and selfdom, the black death, and burning heretics at the stake were a small price to pay. Right. Got it.

As a Christian I apologize for Neal, as a scientists I apologize for Neal. There appears to be some trollish nature to him. Don't feed him any further and the mess will clean up itself.

Further, Intelligent Design is a political cause, not a scientific cause. This would give Baylor every right to return the money as it would serve to drag Baylor into politics (which is prohibited to Baylor) and would threaten the institution’s tax exempt status.

— Moses

Comment #205550 Posted by Erp on September 9, 2007 12:15 PM (e) It is partisan politics that are prohibited (e.g., how can we get Thompson elected). Areas with political overtones can be funded, otherwise universities couldn’t do research on global warming or other politically controversial areas.

Regarding comment 205560, according to GuideStar, the Discovery Institute is a 501c3 corporation. Are you implying, therefore, that they may arguably be violating the law? Charity Navigator, by the way, gives them a four-star rating - their highest.

I ask again, has anyone bothered to assess the three papers Marks has up on his website (all of which are supposedly under the peer-reviewing process now)? If these papers are scientifically addressing issues in evolutionary computation, then I would say the grant money was appropriately being spent. Does anyone actually know what Marks is claiming, and can anyone give a rebuttal? Where are the responses from Adami and Schneider? Before we say that Baylor had every right to revoke and return the grant money because 1. Marks was only politically promoting ID and 2. Marks assumed ID was true without evidence, we must first assess the scientific merits of his research. That is something that it seems Baylor did not bother to do, or anyone else for that matter. If he is doing valid research, then I agree with the strip-club funded Stanford prof that said "Whatever will provide cash flow will do." If Stanford accepts funds from strip clubs for research, I think Baylor should accept funds from Lifeworks. According to Dembski: "Regardless, whether this was a formal or informal policy, the president of the university had signed off on a grant which listed me as a third-party beneficiary. The university had a legal obligation to honor its commitments (my attorney indicated that I could sue Baylor it didn’t). Instead, the university decided to return the money for the grant simply so that I would no longer be associated with Baylor."

Did the university have a legal responsibility or not honor the grant? How was Dembski 'snuck in' if his name was listed on the grant?

A few random comments:

1. This matter should not be mistaken for a commentary, on the part of Baylor or anyone else, on the status of ID. It's part of an ongoing spat between Baylor and Dembski, and it's personal, not business. Basically, Baylor fired Dembski, who found a way to sneak in thru a back door. Baylor is saying, in its own peculiar way, "fired means fired!".

Look at it this way - suppose yer in upper management and you fire a middle manager. Some time later, you find that another underling has found a way to sneak this person back into your company. Of course you're going to fire this person (again!). You will probably also fire the underling who is tweaking his/her nose at you. Fortunately for Marks, tenure makes this an unlikely outcome as far as his status is concerned. (One must wonder, though, why Marks would insinuate himself into this grudge match. Did he not know how poisoned Dembski has left things at Baylor?)

2. The grant by Lifeworks is odd. Few institutions will accept a grant if the terms of the grant dictate who is to be hired with said funds. No university (or anyone else, for that matter) will give such control of personnel matters to outside agents. And they should not be expected to.

It would have been far more usual if Lifeworks had made the award directly to Dembski, with the stipulation that the work be done in Marks' lab.

3. If anyone has dealt with administrators signing off on approvals for grants, then it is easy to see how Baylor could first have approved this award. If Marks did not fully disclose the terms (which seem to have dictated hiring policy) when seeking approval, then the return of the award seems OK to me (although it may not be in a court of law). If everything was on the up-and-up, and the administrator was signing one of a stack of such forms (a likely scenario), then Baylor should have just sucked things up and let the matter slide. Heck, it's only one year and no money lost from Baylor's coffers. Once the error was found, simple notice that Dembski would in no way be extended would suffice to once again remove Dembski from the premises. (And open yet another episode in this sad soap opera.)

4. On the plus side, Baylor seems to have a football team, no?

Did the university have a legal responsibility or not honor the grant? How was Dembski ‘snuck in’ if his name was listed on the grant?

Of course, despite all this, Dembski’s admissions that his work so far was hardly as solid as some had led to believe is interesting, of course, will the new ‘papers’ address the many shortcomings of ID? I doubt it.

— PvM

I ask again, has anyone bothered to assess the three papers Marks has up on his website (all of which are supposedly under the peer-reviewing process now)?

— Robby

This argument fails to distinguish two equally valid and relevant ways of understanding targets: (1) targets as humanly constructed patterns that we arbitrarily impose on things to suit our interests and (2) targets as patterns that exist independently of us and therefore regardless of our interests. In other words, targets can be extrinsic (i.e., imposed on things from outside) or intrinsic (i.e., inherent in things as such).

Demski already has an appointment at Southwestern Baptist College and could have easily done his “research” there.

I have read one of the three papers by Dembski and Marks, Active Information in Evolutionary Search. It argues that evolutionary algorithms generate new information because it was loaded into them by the programmer. They discuss Dawkin’s METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL example in this light saying: look, the target was specified in advance. Then they concede that this example is irrelevant quoting Dawkins: “Life isn’t like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distant target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection.”

— Oleg Tchernyshyov

So now we know why these guys spent so much time trying to appear to have a real grant, a real lab and do real research. They simply haven't done anything. They just wanted the appearance of respectability. Maybe they thought that would be enough to get the paper published in a reputable journal. Maybe they are tired of hearing that there are no articles supporting ID in the peer-reviewed literature.

Of course, what they forgot was that in real science ideas are judged on their merits. It doesn't matter how much money you have or what insitiution you are employed by. If you don't do the research and gather the evidence to support your claims they will rightfully be rejected, no matter where you try to publish.

They could have avoided all the trouble by just publishing in their own "journal". Maybe that would not give the same appearance of respectability, but at least it would not have made them look so bad once again when their dubious dealings were made public.

The actions taken by Baylor might look better if the papers are never published in a real journal. Then it will be obvious that the whole incident was just another scam to try to get the same old ideas out there once again with no more real evidence. What a shock.

The preloading argument has already been destroyed. Remember the challenge given to creationists on this site? None of them were able to meet the challenge. Even though they claimed the answer for the genetic algorithm was preloaded, they couldn't even come up with the best answer. This paper seems to be like beating a dead horse and trying to get paid for it.

Another of their papers, Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites, deals with Thomas Schneider's program ev. It would be great if someone familiar with ev could read and comment on that paper.

Looks like the Marks-Dembski site evolves. The link to the three papers (and the rest of the publications) is gone from the homepage of EvolutionaryInformatics.org. You can still find them using a direct link to Marks' personal site: http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/Publications/

Adam,

Re intelligence as Elsberry and Shallit have pointed out in their classic takedown of Dembski's by-now-discarded--in-the-dust-pamphlet; No Free Lunch; there is nvere working definition of intelligence. In a limited sense intelligence can be used as an empirical entity, if you apply it narrowly at a certain level; say the heat regulation in an electric iron or toaster. Anything beynd that as Dembski does is equivocation and useless. Even the much touted information that IDCs talk about is meaningless unless you specify what info you are talking about Shannon or Kolmogorov etc., And even then everything is information, we have ways to make sense of some types of information, what we can't make sense of or have no use for, we call noise This is quite an arbitrary classification and has no clear boundary only ad hoc limits.

Ahh… but someone is pushing the pedals in the car, and therefore they are inputting motive work. Motive work is being “smuggled in” by the driver…

A bit more arm-chair psychologizing, with all the usual risks. Dembski has absolutely no need of a position at Baylor (nor of an office there) in order to publish. (Scientists have even been known to publish revolutionary papers from lowly jobs at patent offices in provincial cities, for example!). Even if Baylor won't let him eat in their cafeteria, he can always drive over to Baylor, park in a visitor's lot, pull up a chair in Marks' office or lab, and collaborate on some work with him. The extra money may well be welcome, but it's neither huge nor long-term, so it shouldn't make a big difference. Being able to put Baylor on the masthead of some news releases and the like would carry some benefit in terms of public perception of ID, and Dembski is certaintly sensitive to that (see his January promise of unveiling an ID lab at a major university), but by now he is well enough known that people will seek out his work or avoid it after recognizing his name, so the "prestigious address" aspect can't really be crucial either.

It has to boil down to ego & validation - Baylor rejected him, and he doesn't like that. If he can finagle a connection with Baylor and can take his family to the cafeteria without his ID card triggering an exclusion*, then he can think of himself as a part of the Baylor community (notwithstanding some meanie administrators), as opposed to being its reject.

(*I'd love to think of that as a security alert, complete with alarms going off, but I doubt it.)

What I also find interesting, by the way, is that Marks is clearly an excellent scholar in his field, with a superior track-record of funding through all sorts of governmental and private agencies. Why did he look for such a cheap shortcut for his work with Dembski, if he truly believes the work is competitive and already has several publications in the pipeline?

I also tackled Schroeder, as well as Hugh Ross, here: "The Bible as a Science Text," http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/BkRevs.htm. The second and third reviews pertain to Schroeder's works.

The only “mischief” here was done by the Baylor administration…again! First Dembski, then Beckwith and now Marks. Baylor continues to give itself black eyes.

Surely you can understand that Baylor has some interest in maintaining its reputation here?

The first part is mostly true. What you offer for the second part is too narrow. You can fund this research with out overly advocating. However, once you, as the DI does, start advocating legislation, packing school boards and the what-not, you’re well down the slippery slope. Especially if these lobbying/influence efforts get beyond the “no substantial part” exception to the general rule. In short, a 501©(3) organization can engage in de minimus lobbying and politics, but that’s not the Discovery Institute (and the ID movement) which is almost completely dedicated to lobbying and politics. And it’s from this position, I hoped to be clear that I was pointing out that beyond the “martyrdom” position taken there are reasons for Baylor to send the money back. Including Baylor not wishing to have to deal with a lobbying/impermissible activities which would include one of it’s associates (in this case Demski) engaging in overt politics with funds disbursed through the University.

— moses

I wanted to respond to hoary puccoon:

"So basically we’re being told that the Dark Ages were really great times because look at all those gorgeous cathedrals they built and selfdom, the black death, and burning heretics at the stake were a small price to pay. Right. Got it."

I don't think this is true. Black death, yes, that might be price, but serfdom and burning heretics at the stake? Why, wouldn't those be bonuses? I mean, if these people would take control, sure, they might oppose black death, but I think they would gladly introduce burning heretics at the stake, as a great, clean family fun and barbeque. They would sell souvenirs. They might even do press conference beforehand where they would explain that burning a man (or a woman) alive is for their own good.

I can see it now... "I have seen [John Smith] burned alive, and all *I* got was this lousy T-shirt]...

As for serfdom, I guess that's a toss-up. They might do it, if they thought it would be sufficiently unpopular.

MN is an arbitrary constraint upon scientific practice that supposedly protects science from some ill-defined possibility of deviating into the supernatural or metaphysics.

Marek 14--
Lol!
You're so right. Serfdom and burning heretics would go in the plus column. Unfortunately, if we to put limits on scientific research any time it interferes with someone's comfortable notions of the supernatural, the inevitable result will be a lot of deaths from potentially curable diseases. Apparently the IDers think that's a small price to pay.

but I think they would gladly introduce burning heretics at the stake, as a great, clean family fun and barbeque.

Actually, it would be the fault of the one burning, wouldn't it.

If these papers are scientifically addressing issues in evolutionary computation, then I would say the grant money was appropriately being spent. Does anyone actually know what Marks is claiming, and can anyone give a rebuttal?

Another of their papers, Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites, deals with Thomas Schneider’s program ev. It would be great if someone familiar with ev could read and comment on that paper.

I looked at the "ev" program example, and I couldn't find any problems with misinterpreting the information observed to be gained from selection. OTOH I am not confident that Dembski's and Mark's handwaving (though laboriously compiled) numbers really capture what they claim, see details below. And the complaint about the "ev" perceptron being a constraint is of course in any case besides the point here since the genetic machinery it models evolved previously. And I would look more at the detail. The ev researcher discussed the narrow window he saw for simulating independent variation. While D&M has a graph that seems to go outside the recommended window and then complain about non-gaussian behavior. I am also confused about if they really looked at the redundancy in the genetic code. I don't think they did, because it allows them to turn around and complain that random searches can easily find several solutions too. (In which case the evolutionary biologist can applaud and note that the creationist Dembski doesn't say any longer that protein site development is strictly impossible.) [Language corrected, bold added.]

To the heap of Corrected Mistakes in Minor Details That Shouldn't Have Been Mentioned Anyway, add June instead of July.

Well, if you burn heretics at stake, then why would you be afraid of global warming? After all, wouldn't the world be a nicer place if it was warmer? In case any natural disaster strucks, it is apparently punishment for failing to find and burn some heretics.

And if the world will fall apart, well, then, it was meant to do that from the beginning, wasn't it? It can't be THEIR fault!

BTW, your arguments on methodological materialism make no sense, as others have already pointed out. To realize this, just take any purportedly supernatural phenomenon you wish, say Jesus turning water into wine, or the Hindu milk-drinking statues - whatever, you choose. Now, tell us how you will practically test the hypothesis that that phenomenon is supernatural. One experiment or more, just tell us. But remember, you have to test the supernatural explanation, not alternative naturalistic hypotheses, because that’s what methodological naturalism does. Go ahead.

If there is a supernatural being whose purposes, decisions, and actions are involved in the existence, governance or structure of physical reality, then any stipulated blanket prohibitions against non-naturalistic explanatory resources runs the serious risk of producing an inescapably skewed picture of physical reality. That is not, of course, to say that if the supernatural does play a role, that if we dropped any naturalistic restrictions that we would automatically be able to construct the correct theory. But the alternative route (under the conditions postulated) would guarantee that we would not.

If (perhaps for overwhelmingly good reasons) science is restricted (even just methodologically) to ‘natural’ explanatory and theoretical resources, then if there is a supernatural realm which does impinge upon the structure and/or operation of the ‘natural’ realm, then the world-picture generated by even the best science will unavoidably be either incomplete or else wrong on some points. Unless one assumes philosophical naturalism (that the natural constitutes the whole of reality) that will be the inescapable upshot of taking even mere methodological naturalism as an essential component of scientific procedure. But even seemingly more innocuous assumptions can lead in similar directions. First, if one restricts science to the natural, and assumes that science can in principle get to all truth, then one has implicitly assumed philosophical naturalism. But second, consider what happens if one stipulates methodological naturalism as essential to science, then this does not assume that science can in principle get to all truth, but merely that science is competent for all physical matters, or that what science does (properly conducted, and in the long run) generate concerning the physical realm will, in principle, be truth. Again, if the truth of the specific matter in question is non-natural, and if science is restricted to natural conceptual resources, even the most excruciatingly proper naturalistic scientific deliverances on that matter may be wide of the mark. Indeed, they will typically be mistaken in exactly the way a science built on philosophical naturalism would be. [2] For practical purposes, that comes close to importing philosophical naturalism into the inner structure of science.

BTW, your arguments on methodological materialism make no sense, as others have already pointed out. To realize this, just take any purportedly supernatural phenomenon you wish, say Jesus turning water into wine, or the Hindu milk-drinking statues - whatever, you choose. Now, tell us how you will practically test the hypothesis that that phenomenon is supernatural. One experiment or more, just tell us. But remember, you have to test the supernatural explanation, not alternative naturalistic hypotheses, because that’s what methodological naturalism does. Go ahead.

Leader in the Voice for Intelligent Design Profile of Dr. Del Ratzch, 1996 Mere Creation conference speaker Who: Dr. Del Ratzsch Where: Calvin College What: Philosophy of Science with research in scientific rationality How does the concept of intelligent design relate to your work? I am particularly interested in how broader principles/concerns and worldview issues function in science, and criteria for determining the legitimacy of such functioning. I am currently working on a book-length exploration of some issues linked to the extent to which and the forms in which design theory can provide scientifically legitimate explanatory resources for genuinely scientific theorizing. What opportunities or opposition has your interest in intelligent design presented? There have been lively debates and competition of ideas where the agenda is to get at what's true, and uncover what is mistaken, evidentially weak, unsupported, or off the wall; these are some of the best ways ever discovered for exposing soft spots in arguments and positions. In fact, for that reason I am hoping that there will be subsequent conferences on design theory where there will be genuine hard-nosed (but loving, of course) give and take on relevant issues.

Donald quoted a philosopher thusly:
" First, if one restricts science to the natural, and assumes that science can in principle get to all truth, then one has implicitly assumed philosophical naturalism"

The 1st statement (that science is restricted to the natural) is in accordance with the definition of science generally accepted by the scientists, the NSF, the general public, and the courts.

the 2nd statement (and the crux or the argument) that science can get in principal to ALL TRUTH (emphasis mine) is a canard. That assumption is the basis of separating methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (or materialism). Science, and scientists, have NOT made this claim- that science can answer ALL questions.

Questions of morality, ethics, social justice, good vs. evil, and a number of other topics are not easily addressable by the scientific method - you CAN apply logic and reason to these questions but part or the argument's starting point is a value assessment or the definitions of "right" and "wrong" etc (AKA beyond science)

The bottom line for fundies is that they believe that science/reason= atheism = moral bankruptcy
(whereas ONLY Revelation/religion/authority = truth)
in my opinion this is the conclusion of small-mindedness and an unexamined existence.

The mistake that is made here, and is not a trivial one, is that scientific truth, that is to say truth obtained through the methods of science under the strictures of MN, also equates to real truth, meaning the truth of the way things really are.

Thank you, raven, for pointing out that Del Ratzch is in fact an ID proponent, an important point that Donald M conveniently left out of his post. Trying to pass Ratzch off as a neutral observer, Donald?

I think Ratzsch is dead wrong here. Without the evidence that a supernatural being of any sort played any part whatsoever in the design, structure or creation of the cosmos or anything in it, MN is what makes the most sense and there is little justification for ignoring it. The only reason to consider supernatural causes is an unwarranted stipulation designed to make certain considerations appear to be on the scientific table.

There, all fixed now.

Actually, it would be the fault of the one burning, wouldn’t it.

what happens with the [Evolutionary Informatics Lab] will serve as a test case for what is likely to be Baylor’s Christian future.

next he'll be telling his few supporters that whatever happens to him personally is what will happen to christianity...

the ego of the man is astounding.

As a matter of fact, Del Ratzsch is not an ID proponent, unless you mean that anyone who eschews believes that knowledge is not limited to the empirical is an ID proponent. In that case, any theist who thinks she has good reason to have non-empirical knowledge is an ID advocate. Such a theory, pardon the irony, has no explanatory value.

Ratzsch, you may not know, is critical of Dembski's explanatory filter, as are some philosophers and scientists who believe the way you answer arguments is with counter-arguments rather than empty and inconsistent mantras: "ID is not falsifiable and it's been falsified," "Darwinism can be falsified, but as a matter of fact there's always a hand-dandy ad hoc hypothesis to account for anomalies." The appendix to Ratzsch's book contains a nice example of a false positive to Dembski's filter. Now, here's a guy that can help your cause, Pandabaters, and you dis the guy. Read a book that stretches your mind, for God's sake.

My own view is theistic evolution, but not the namby-pamby Ken-Miller-Darwin's-prison-bitch-sort-of-theistic evolution. It's more of the Francis Collins variety.

Thank you, raven, for pointing out that Del Ratzch is in fact an ID proponent, an important point that Donald M conveniently left out of his post. Trying to pass Ratzch off as a neutral observer, Donald?

the 2nd statement (and the crux or the argument) that science can get in principal to ALL TRUTH (emphasis mine) is a canard. That assumption is the basis of separating methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (or materialism). Science, and scientists, have NOT made this claim- that science can answer ALL questions. Questions of morality, ethics, social justice, good vs. evil, and a number of other topics are not easily addressable by the scientific method - you CAN apply logic and reason to these questions but part or the argument’s starting point is a value assessment or the definitions of “right” and “wrong” etc (AKA beyond science) The bottom line for fundies is that they believe that science/reason= atheism = moral bankruptcy (whereas ONLY Revelation/religion/authority = truth) in my opinion this is the conclusion of small-mindedness and an unexamined existence.

But second, consider what happens if one stipulates methodological naturalism as essential to science, then this does not assume that science can in principle get to all truth, but merely that science is competent for all physical matters, or that what science does (properly conducted, and in the long run) generate concerning the physical realm will, in principle, be truth. Again, if the truth of the specific matter in question is non-natural, and if science is restricted to natural conceptual resources, even the most excruciatingly proper naturalistic scientific deliverances on that matter may be wide of the mark. Indeed, they will typically be mistaken in exactly the way a science built on philosophical naturalism would be. [2] For practical purposes, that comes close to importing philosophical naturalism into the inner structure of science.

It’s more of the Francis Collins variety

Again, if the truth of the specific matter in question is non-natural, and if science is restricted to natural conceptual resources, even the most excruciatingly proper naturalistic scientific deliverances on that matter may be wide of the mark.

“even the most excruciatingly proper naturalistic scientific deliverances on that matter may be wide of the mark.”

we must a)choose between them as if they were compeitors

With all due respect for Del Ratzsch, all the hand-wringing about MN and PN in science sounds at best like navel-gazing, and most often is just cheap propaganda by people with obvious religious and anti-scientific agendas. The best demonstration of this is that there are thousands of excellent scientists out there who accept the supernatural in their metaphysical belief systems, and not a single one of them has found a way to scientifically address the supernatural. Even people who investigate purportedly supernatural phenomena (intercessory prayer and healing, ghosts, various miracles, etc) ultimately study the natural, physical manifestations of those phenomena, and test potential naturalistic hypotheses for their occurrence.

science is inherently self-correcting. if evolutionary theory, for example, was “wide of the mark”, it would have been abandoned long ago.

As a matter of fact, Del Ratzsch is not an ID proponent, unless you mean that anyone who eschews believes that knowledge is not limited to the empirical is an ID proponent. In that case, any theist who thinks she has good reason to have non-empirical knowledge is an ID advocate. Such a theory, pardon the irony, has no explanatory value. Ratzsch, you may not know, is critical of Dembski’s explanatory filter, as are some philosophers and scientists who believe the way you answer arguments is with counter-arguments rather than empty and inconsistent mantras: “ID is not falsifiable and it’s been falsified,” “Darwinism can be falsified, but as a matter of fact there’s always a hand-dandy ad hoc hypothesis to account for anomalies.” The appendix to Ratzsch’s book contains a nice example of a false positive to Dembski’s filter. Now, here’s a guy that can help your cause, Pandabaters, and you dis the guy. Read a book that stretches your mind, for God’s sake.

Re “ID is not falsifiable and it’s been falsified,”

The two parts there refer to different "definitions" of "ID". The rather vague definitions sometimes given for "ID" aren't falsifiable. Specific claims sometimes given by ID pushers might be. (I don't know of any that both (1) predict something different from current science and manage to avoid conflict with evidence.)

Re "“Darwinism can be falsified, but as a matter of fact there’s always a hand-dandy ad hoc hypothesis to account for anomalies.”

Small anomalies can be attributed to lack of complete data. Large ones, or a really large number of small ones that form a pattern not consistent with evolution, would be a problem.

Re "Science, and scientists, have NOT made this claim- that science can answer ALL questions."

Course not. Science depends on detecting consistent verifiable patterns in observations and/or measurements, and inferences of general principles from those patterns. That excludes things for which such patterns can't be found among currently measurable phenomena. It also excludes deciding preferences or priorities (e.g. morals, aesthetics, etc.), since those depend on motivations.

I wish people wouldn't use the natural/supernatural distinction so much. Whether something is traditionally thought of as supernatural is not what keeps it from being studied scientifically. If relevant reliable data about a phenomena can be collected, it can be studied; otherwise not.

Henry

With alll due respect, Andrea, the critique of MN does not translate to believing that the supernatural is subject to empirical investigation directly.

However, critics of MN, such as myself, also don’t automatically assume that a)there are no supernatural entities or b)if there are, no activity on their part could ever have detectable empirical consequences in nature. MN as applied (and as defended here by you and others) makes one or both of these assumptions – and it might very well be the case that neither is true. And if that is the case, then MN will blind science to the real explanation of a given matter under investigation.

Dismissing this important distinction as “navel gazing” doesn’t make the problem go away. Its a real problem. Not everyone thinks we ought to just take science’s word for something, especially when science is dealing with the big questions such as who we are and where we came from. Claims such as “there’s nothing special about us” or “we’re just the ‘third ape’ (as the title of one book proudly proclaimed) aren’t magically made true by the arbitrary enforcement of MN.

Dawkins, you might recall, once famously wrote that even if there were no evidence for it, “evolution would still be the best available theory.” That doesn’t sound very “self’correcting” to me. Even in the absence of evidence, Dawkins would adhere to evolution, or something very much like it. There’s no way to abandon it, if you’re committed to PN.

Amazon.com Nature, Design, and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science (Suny Series in Philosophy and Biology) (Paperback) by Delvin Lee Ratzsch (Author), Del Ratzsch (Author) Book Description Explores the question of whether or not concepts and principles involving supernatural intelligent design can occupy any legitimate place within science. From the Back Cover Although the scientific illegitimacy of supernatural design is typically asserted with enormous confidence and vigor, there has been surprisingly little actual work on such key foundational issues as even what design is and on specific criteria for assessing its legitimacy, or lack, as a scientific concept. However, intelligent supernatural design is again surfacing in discussions both of anthropic principles and of certain types of biological complexity. This book develops a definition of design, explicates the more specific concept of supernatural design, defends a general criterion for scientific legitimacy, and argues that in some cases the concept of intelligent supernatural design can meet the relevant requirements for scientific legitimacy.

Leader in the Voice for Intelligent Design Profile of Dr. Del Ratzch, 1996 Mere Creation conference speaker Who: Dr. Del Ratzsch Where: Calvin College

No it wouldn’t, because if one is a philosophical naturalist (or outright atheist) as many evolutionary biologists and defenders of evolution are by their own admission,

Its a real problem.

With all due respect, Andrea, the critique of MN does not translate to believing that the supernatural is subject to empirical investigation directly. However, critics of MN, such as myself, also don’t automatically assume that a)there are no supernatural entities or b)if there are, no activity on their part could ever have detectable empirical consequences in nature. MN as applied (and as defended here by you and others) makes one or both of these assumptions – and it might very well be the case that neither is true. And if that is the case, then MN will blind science to the real explanation of a given matter under investigation.

evolution, or something like it, is the only game in town.

The big question which no one has answered yet, is why is there even a universe.

there you go again, assuming you have the slightest clue how science works.

And why do you or any other Xians care anyway. If your faith requires scientific proof, it isn’t much of a faith.

Otoh, I’m not sure what the point is of speculating what would happen in the absence of the evidence that’s been accumulating for a century and a half.

I think Donald M needs to read some history.

Charles Darwin was studying to be a clergyman when he began his scientific work. He was specifically influenced at that time by the Rev. William Paley's "Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Diety, Collected from the Appearances of Nature," which was required reading at Cambridge when Darwin was a student there.

In other words, Darwin started out to PROVE the existence of the supernatural. He did formulate a theory which can be used congruently with philosophical naturalism (although not all scientists do so.) But the theory was simply the result of his research-- and Darwin was too honest to lie about what he found. Donald M's implication that evolutionary theory is driven by philosophical naturalism isn't just wrong; it's completely backwards.

Donald wrote:

"However, critics of MN, such as myself, also don’t automatically assume that a)there are no supernatural entities or b)if there are, no activity on their part could ever have detectable empirical consequences in nature. MN as applied (and as defended here by you and others) makes one or both of these assumptions – and it might very well be the case that neither is true. And if that is the case, then MN will blind science to the real explanation of a given matter under investigation."

This argument is incorrect. To see why, just substitute the word alien for supernatural. No scientist assumes that there are no aliens or that their activities are undetectable when they do research. However, until some evidence of their existence is discovered, the alien hypothesis will not be the first hypothesis considered to explain observations of nature.

That does not mean that science is blind to the existence of aliens. It simply means that until there is evidence of their existence they are not yet within the realm of scientfic investigation. Everyone knows that they may exist, but no one can use them as an explanation without evidence. If they do exist, then that points out a limitation of science. That is why the conclusions of science are always tentative. That is a strength of science, not a weakness.

In the absence of evidence you are free to believe anything you want. You just shouldn't expect everyone else to share your beliefs without evidence.

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

However, critics of MN, such as myself, also don’t automatically assume that a)there are no supernatural entities or b)if there are, no activity on their part could ever have detectable empirical consequences in nature.

— Donald

Note also how Donald M., while ranting about this or that scientists philosophical views, did not actually address the most important and strongest point raised here (over and over again). That ET is useful because
1) Doesn't conflict with evidence,
2) It explains the evidence, and
3) Makes testable claims to enable future research.
ID and Creationism do not meet all these standards.

All the talk of MN and PN is just so much poppycock. Scientists don't a priori rule out anything: if a theory involving Divine intervention 1) didn't conflict with the evidence, 2) explained the evidence, and 3) made testable predictions, I'm sure somebody would be researching it now. See for instance the studies involving intercessory prayer.

So, the issue has been raised again. Please demonstrate how Creationism or ID meet the requirements above.

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

So, the issue has been raised again. Please demonstrate how Creationism or ID meet the requirements above.

laser-

your post is there!

stop reposting already. try hitting ctl + F5 to refresh your browser cache.

Strangely, nowhere in the footnotes for this article does Ratzsch cite Barbara Forrest. That is odd because she has exhaustively researched the connections between creationism and ID. One would think that if Ratzsch were honestly interested in determining whether the claim that ID is merely creationism warmed-over, he would at least read Forrest’s work. But by all appearances, he is either unaware of her work or decided not to consider it for his arguments. Neither case reflects well on his scholarship.

Of course he’s read her. He just doesn’t find anything she’s written worth quoting.

He just doesn’t dismiss it out of hand, the way so many here at PT do.

Surely you can understand that Baylor has some interest in maintaining its reputation here?

Their reputation is getting worse by the minute!

*psst* hey Quacky...

did you ever stop to think, for even a second, that Dembski set this whole thing up precisely because he knew how Baylor would react, and fully INTENDED to tarnish Baylor's reputation with it?

Ever think his motive might be simple revenge?

hmm?

Note also how Donald M., while ranting about this or that scientists philosophical views, did not actually address the most important and strongest point raised here (over and over again). That ET is useful because 1) Doesn’t conflict with evidence, 2) It explains the evidence, and 3) Makes testable claims to enable future research. ID and Creationism do not meet all these standards.

All the talk of MN and PN is just so much poppycock. Scientists don’t a priori rule out anything:

So far, all ET has explained is adaptation, something no one disputes. At the macro-evolutionary, ET doesn’t seem all that successful at making testable claims,

Is it the case that all natural phenomenon must have a natural cause?

p.s.

hey Quacky:

read my post here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/09/follow_the_mone.html#comment-206284

and tell me how close it is to what you wrote in your latest.

from that, would you conclude we do or do not understand what you are trying to say?

it's not that we don't understand you, Quacky, as your ideas are not only simplistic, but very, very old.

try reading for comprehension, as all of your questions and critiques have already been addressed, numerous times in this thread alone, let alone all the other threads you have posted the EXACT SAME THING in over the last year or so.

now then, I reiterate: you need help. go vist your nearest health care professional, show them this thread, and ask for their advice.

'Whether or not ET explains the evidence depends on what is meant by both ‘evidence’ and ‘explanation’. Fanciful just so stories about the history of life make interesting reading, but hardly constitute an explanation in the scientific sense. So far, all ET has explained is adaptation, something no one disputes. At the macro-evolutionary, ET doesn’t seem all that successful at making testable claims, at least not without assuming what’s at issue, otherwise known as circular reasoning. Just because an hypothesis doesn’t conflict with evidence doesn’t mean its right. Any police detective could tell you that.'

Now don't get me wrong, I'm no scientist, but my gut feeling tells me this is a huge old pile of boilerplate nonsense.

Do I win a prize?

Do I win a prize?

and tell me how close it is to what you wrote in your latest. from that, would you conclude we do or do not understand what you are trying to say?

try reading for comprehension, as all of your questions and critiques have already been addressed, numerous times in this thread alone, let alone all the other threads you have posted the EXACT SAME THING in over the last year or so.

Apparently not, since you continue to resort to ad hominems ad nauseum.

I’ve asked repeatedly in various ways never never gets answered,...tell me how it is we know scientifically (and not philosophically, theologically or metaphysically) that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect?

Who makes that mistake? Certainly not scientists, who are the first to admit that all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, that is, even explanations that we think we have fully reached may ultimately be all wrong (let alone explanations that are still incomplete!). On the other hand, science seems to work as a method to reliably gather information about the world because such information has been consistently demonstrated to be practically useful. That’s all you can ask of science, and all it claims to do.

'I’ll even give you a hint: no one on the planet has ever established scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. Worse, it hasn’t been established philosophically, metaphysically or theologically either. But you could be the first: show me your scientific explanation!'

But the burden of proof is not on our side, surely? It is your side making the extraordinary claim, whereas we are merely stating we believe what we see.

So YOU provide evidence.

It’s real simple, SirT, provide the science (according to your understanding of science) or admit this is nothing more than your philosophical preference.

All the talk of MN and PN is just so much poppycock. Scientists don’t a priori rule out anything:...

Scientists don’t a priori rule out anything: if a theory involving Divine intervention 1) didn’t conflict with the evidence, 2) explained the evidence, and 3) made testable predictions, I’m sure somebody would be researching it now. See for instance the studies involving intercessory prayer.

I’ll even give you a hint: no one on the planet has ever established scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. Worse, it hasn’t been established philosophically, metaphysically or theologically either. But you could be the first: show me your scientific explanation!

— Donald

Calvin College is a comprehensive liberal arts college in the Reformed tradition of historic Christianity. Through our learning, we seek to be agents of renewal in the academy, church, and society. We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world.

Critics of Intelligent Design routinely tar ID with a creationist brush (‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ is now the term of choice of ID critics), and although both polemically driven and in some sense misleading, use of the term is understandable given that signi?cant numbers of lay creationists have enthusiastically appropriated ID into their own efforts. Nevertheless, the term is misleading because key ?gures in the birth and early development of the contemporary ID movement had no prior connection either with creationism or creationists. Key ?gures with no such prior ties include people like Phillip Johnson and the biochemist Michael Behe. To the extent that the ID movement has a founder and head, it is Johnson (Shanks himself identi?es Johnson as ‘the architect of the intelligent design movement’ [p. 11]). And Behe (whom Shanks identi?es as a ‘leading light of the contemporary intelligent design movement’ [p. 40]) was arguably the ID movement’s ?rst (and still one of its two most recognized) scienti?c theorist. On the other hand, a number of dominant creationist ?gures have sharply criticized ID. That number includes Henry Morris, who was arguably the world’s dominant young-earth creationist during the last third of the 20th century.

— Del Ratzsch

Of course he’s read her. He just doesn’t find anything she’s written worth quoting.

And as for his being an ID proponent, just because he’s on faculty at Calvin doesn’t automatically make him one. He just doesn’t dismiss it out of hand, the way so many here at PT do.

BTW, your arguments on methodological materialism make no sense, as others have already pointed out. To realize this, just take any purportedly supernatural phenomenon you wish, say Jesus turning water into wine, or the Hindu milk-drinking statues - whatever, you choose. Now, tell us how you will practically test the hypothesis that that phenomenon is supernatural. One experiment or more, just tell us. But remember, you have to test the supernatural explanation, not alternative naturalistic hypotheses, because that’s what methodological naturalism does. Go ahead.

It wouldn’t have helped to use ctrl+F5. It was giving me an error message

on the post, or after when attempting to view the thread?

Hey, Donald,

Just wondering.

How do you test for the supernatural?

Phenolphthalein?

That doohickey in "Ghostbusters"?

Kreskin?

How would you know if you had a negative response?

"Nope, no invisible fairies here, this is natural."

How would you ever know?

Why should we assume there's a higher plane, or whatever?

So far everything in the universe seems to be, well, natural.

The burden is on you to prove otherwise.

And again, incredulity and current ignorance are not proof.

Not holding my breath on this one.

That’s nonsense. MN makes no assumption as to the existence of supernatural entities, nor assume that if they existed, they would have no empirical consequences in nature. Proof of the pudding is, people use MN to study intercessory prayer, ghosts, dogs with psychic powers, etc. All the time. If the real explanation of a phenomenon were to be supernatural, quite simply science would not be able to provide good explanations for it, and we’d know those explanations are wrong because they would have no predictive value with respect to observations of similar phenomena. In those instances, people who like to do science would go on and test other testable explanations (perforce naturalistic) and keep looking, while people who find metaphysical explanations satisfactory, would explain them as supernatural and be done with it.

I was afraid that would confuse you. I put that there only to provide context. He’s an ID proponent because he ignores comprehensive scholarly work on a question that he tries to address. He’s an ID proponent because he wrote a chapter in a book that was edited by Dembski. He’s an ID proponent because of the content of many of his other articles. There, is that clear enough for you?

But the burden of proof is not on our side, surely? It is your side making the extraordinary claim, whereas we are merely stating we believe what we see. So YOU provide evidence.

...But, as far as I know, no one has demonstrated that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in any natural system can not be actual design, even in principal. If that has been established scientifically, then I’d love to see the research studies!!

What you can not do, Andrea, is have it both ways, as I’ve said before. If MN is true,...

...then no supernatural explanation for any observation is allowed. Period.

And thus MN does, in fact, rule out a priori what may in fact be the correct (as in the actual truth) explanation.

MN=PN and there’s no getting around it.

Andrea, this is simply incorrect and you seem to be confused as to what MN really is as an principle applied in scientific practice. It is by definition a principle that holds that for the sake of doing science only natural causes for any observed phenomenon will be considered.

From talkorigins.org: The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

Andrea, this is simply incorrect and you seem to be confused as to what MN really is as an principle applied in scientific practice.

or is it only apparent design

Andrea, this is simply incorrect and you seem to be confused as to what MN really is as an principle applied in scientific practice. It is by definition a principle that holds that for the sake of doing science only natural causes for any observed phenomenon will be considered. Even if the real cause of a certain observation is, in fact, non-natural, MN demands that preference be given to the natural explanation.

It all comes down to what one thinks the business of science is about. Is science about coming up with a natural explanation for every observation; or is it about discovering the truth about how nature actually works.

If there is a supernatural realm and activity on the part of a supernatural being played a significant role in certain features of nature, then that would be, in fact, how nature (or at least that particular part of nature) actually works and any explanation that didn’t make reference to that cause would, in fact, be incorrect, no matter how well constructed and how tightly it adhered to the stipulations of MN.

Donald wrote:

"I’m not the one making the extraordinary claim here. The extrodinary claim is somehow we know that nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect. If we don’t know that, then MN really doesn’t make a whole of sense. Rather than approaching the data with a ready made stipulation as to what the data must tell us, why not let the data tell us where the relevant boundaries are. But MN doesn’t allow for that and dictates the boundaries prior to the investigation or examination of the data. The burden of proof, as it were, is on those who want to continue defending MN."

This is completely wrong.

First, you are the one making the extraordinary claim. You are the one claiming that everyone should believe something for which there is no evidence.

Second, no one is claiming that "nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect". If a devout Christian uses MN to do reseach, that in no way negates his belief in God or anything supernatural. In the same way, saying that I can make a tire without rubber in no way implies that rubber does not exist.

Third, we have "let the data tell us where the relevant boundaries are". We tried making supernatural assumptions to explain observed phenomena for thousands of years. It got us exactly nowhere. Then we applied MN to the problems and presto, progress occurred.

Fourth, the burden of proof is definately on those who claim that supernatural explanations are superior to those found by MN. For example, if I ignore the possibility of alien intervention when I study the structure of Ipateus, I don't have to justify that assumption. If I can propose a reasonable natural explanation that accounts for all of the known facts, then I have a reasonable confidence in the conclusions. If I cannot account for the facts using natural explanations, then I am fully justified in examining the alien hypothesis. However, until I have some positive evidence of alien intervention, until I have some facts that are inexplicable by any other explanation, then the alien explanation is not justified. And until I have some direct evidence of alien intervention, the alien hypothesis remains simply an unsupported hypothesis. If I claim that aliens created Ipateus, then the burden of proof is definately on me. If you claim that God did something supernatural, then the burden of proof is definately on you.

Ratzsch may be willing to give ID a hearing, but that hardly makes him a proponent.

I suspect you only want to label him as one so you can dismiss everything else he writes.

FYI, I know Del personally and have had a few conversations with him over lunch on this very subject and can tell you he is not an ID proponent. He is, however, at least open to the possibility that ID could be scientifically fruitful. D

Is there any real difference between "Methodological Naturalism" and simply "basing conclusions on the available relevant evidence"?

If not, seems like using the later phrase would avoid some confusion.

Henry

FYI, I know Del personally and have had a few conversations with him over lunch on this very subject and can tell you he is not an ID proponent.

This is completely wrong. First, you are the one making the extraordinary claim. You are the one claiming that everyone should believe something for which there is no evidence.

Second, no one is claiming that “nature is a closed system of natural cause and effect”. If a devout Christian uses MN to do reseach, that in no way negates his belief in God or anything supernatural. In the same way, saying that I can make a tire without rubber in no way implies that rubber does not exist.

Third, we have “let the data tell us where the relevant boundaries are”. We tried making supernatural assumptions to explain observed phenomena for thousands of years. It got us exactly nowhere. Then we applied MN to the problems and presto, progress occurred.

Fourth, the burden of proof is definately on those who claim that supernatural explanations are superior to those found by MN. For example, if I ignore the possibility of alien intervention when I study the structure of Ipateus, I don’t have to justify that assumption. If I can propose a reasonable natural explanation that accounts for all of the known facts, then I have a reasonable confidence in the conclusions. If I cannot account for the facts using natural explanations, then I am fully justified in examining the alien hypothesis. However, until I have some positive evidence of alien intervention, until I have some facts that are inexplicable by any other explanation, then the alien explanation is not justified. And until I have some direct evidence of alien intervention, the alien hypothesis remains simply an unsupported hypothesis. If I claim that aliens created Ipateus, then the burden of proof is definately on me. If you claim that God did something supernatural, then the burden of proof is definately on you.

Perhaps he is not a proponent in the sense that Dembski and Behe are proponents. So ask him this, next time you have lunch: Should ID be taught in science courses?

How is that aliens fall outside the natural cause realm?

I can already answer that for him and for me. No. Neither he nor I have ever advocated for that.

And BTW we don’t give a damn what you believe. 6,000 year old earth, no Big Bang, god keeping the planets in their orbits, flat earth, sacrificing chickens to Vodoo on full moons. Whatever, it is a free country. We do object to people sneaking their religious views into our kids science classes. It is in fact, illegal, separation of church and state and has been ruled on in court many times.

Tell me, Raven, what does a worldview free science class look like?

Donald wrote:

"But if the truth of the matter under investigation is that supernatural causation is the correct explanation, then no matter how consistent with the evidence the natural explanation is, it would also be wrong…and as Ratzsch has made clear, will be wrong in precisely the same way and for the same reasons as a science built on philosophical (as opposed to methodological) naturalism would be.

And that is exactly my point. If the natural explanation is wrong, then it will be inconsistent with the evidence. If it is consistent with all the evidence than you can not demonstrate that it is wrong. This is a limitation of science. If supernatural explanations are indeed correct, it doesn't matter. It still won't be science even if it is the truth. No one ever claimed that science wiould always give the correct answer. But abandoning an answer that is consistent with all the evidence will not get you a better answer. Assuming a supernatural explanation where noen is required is unwarranted.

"Several of the greatest names in the history of science had no problem at all including the agency of God within the structure of their scientific investigations, and our knowledge progressed quite nicely."

Once again you make my point for me. They did not need to insist that God did not exist in order to do science. But as long as they posited supernatural explanations for natural phenomena they got nowhere. As soon as they started coming up with natural explanations they made rapid progress. That may indeed be a little simplistic, but can you name any supernatural explanation that has served to increase our knowledge of the natural world?

Donald asks: Tell me, Raven, what does a worldview free science class look like?

“I’m not sure what they did, but somebody had to have done something.”

hmm, that got put into the wrong thread.

Tell me, Raven, what does a worldview free science class look like?

Re "or the Pythagorean theorem,"

What's this, Euclidism? Teach the controversy! If the world isn't flat, space might not be flat either!

:D

Henry

And that is exactly my point. If the natural explanation is wrong, then it will be inconsistent with the evidence. If it is consistent with all the evidence than you can not demonstrate that it is wrong.

. While ID’s intelligence is clearly supernatural, it likes to pretend that ID is all about intelligence but as we know, real science can quite accurately deal with natural intelligence.

Donald wrote:

"I wasn’t aware that aliens and supernatural causes were equivalent. How is that aliens fall outside the natural cause realm?"

Presumably they do not (unless of course aliens are supernatural). My point was that they are outside the realm of science as long as there is no evidence of their existence (whether they exist or not), in exactly the same way that the supernatural is outside the realm of science as long as there is no evidence for it (regardless of whether the supernatural exists or not). The only difference is that it might be possible to study aliens empirically using MN. As has been pointed out already, this may not be possible for supernatural causes.

"As opposed to claiming that natural causes are superior to supernatural ones? Just because we have a natural explanation that seems to fit all the data doesn’t mean we have the correct explanation. Data always underdetermines theories in science. Given a natural explanation for a particular observation and a supernatural explanation for the very same data, why is that we must first choose between them as if they were competitors and second give preference to the natural explanation?"

Because, as I already stated, natural explanations increase our knowledge and understanding of the natural world. They provide testable hypotheses ammenable to falsification. They provide predictions and potential applications. Supernatural explanations do not, even if they are correct. Also, if the two explanations fit the data equally well, yes the natural explanation is preferred due to Occum's razor (as has already been pointed out by Andrea).

If you don't beleive that MN is a useful approach, fine, don't use it. If you believe that you can study the supernatural, fine, you are free to do so. If you think you have a better way of doing science, fine, go right ahead. But don't try to convince anyone that MN has been unsuccessful or that supernatural explanations have been equally successful at explaining the natural world. And don't try to equate MN with PN, no one is going to fall for that either.

Good grief.