Eugenie Scott Lecture (and the DI Panic)

Problems not yet fixed completely:

Can't read below the fold. I get

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 15, column 759, byte 1974 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

My fault...

I totally agree there is no dichotomy between evolution and religion, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the final criticism of West (if he IS accurately complaining about a statement that humans are the result of unguided evolutionary change - can't say I trust his quoting). As I see it, the scientific situation is "there is no evidence of (intelligently) directed evolution. This is not the same as saying "evolution is undirected" ... that's a metaphysical statement, rather than a scientific statement, in my view. If I deal a hand - 57JQK - maybe it was going to be 67JQK until God intervened. As long as he doesn't leave a telltale statistical influence, we wouldn't know the difference. It is in exactly those situations where we wouldn't know the difference (i.e. all of them) that religious belief doesn't matter to science, because there's no scientifically detectable difference. Science IS concerned with non-science (e.g. metaphysical assertions) masquerading as science, evading the protective filter that is the job of science; and that is where science is interested in religion.

Anytime someone says something like "evolution is unguided" when they really mean "the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks", they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

I agree about the absence of a dichotomy, but I'm less sure about this new form of scientific terminology proposed by snaxolotl and Mike.

I notice that West uses the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy.

Just because Eugenie Scott happens to be an atheist does not in any way invalidate the point she makes about religion and science being compatible.

To tolerate means to accept the existence of things you disagree with. In its full sense, it means that you must actively defend the right of your opponents to express their views, even if you're ready to crush them under the weight of your arguments.

Mr West, whoever he is, shows that he hasn't the slightest clue about what tolerance might be. He can't even "know it when he sees it". I suggest he gets an education.

Oh come now. We have to get behind the effort, and make sure we don't give theists ammunition. We'll turn our attention to those godless physicists and epidemiologists next.

Scientists really need to start putting disclaimers in everything they write saying "Elements of this paper may suggest workings of nature not under the direct micromanagement of God. This is not intended by the authors, who are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn't do it."

We should also put theistically acceptable alternate titles on all scientific papers. The journal Nature shall henceforth be known as Nature (or perhaps Supernature, but we can't tell).

Doesn’t West comprehend that in case of evolution, religious beliefs do not matter unlike with ID where the lack of scientific relevance and the entanglement with religion makes ID unconstitutional to be taught as science in public schools.

— PvM

Scott is an atheist, which she has admitted elsewhere.

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

Has she gone Neville Chamberlain?

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn’t do it.

Singh,

PvM is a Christian, as he has admitted elsewhere.

So what is all of this bull about science and religion being incompatible?

The point is that your conclusion does not follow logically from your premises. For example, if the hypothesis is that there is no relationship between religious belief and acceptance of science, then people can hold any religious beliefs that they want and still support good science. So the data point of Eugenie Scott is compatible with that hypothesis. Indeed, the only way in which the data could even be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis would be if every single scientist were an athiest. But, if the hypothesis is that acceptance of science forces one to be an athiest, then the PvM data point (and millions of others) falsify that hypothesis conclusively. In much the same way, saying that you can make a tire without rubber in no way implies that rubber does not exist and obviously only those with a vested financial interest in rubber would try to claim otherwise.

I am disappointed in West. He missed the easy one:

“Evolution is the only scientific game in town,” said Dr. Eugenie C. Scott...

I expected the DI to use the headline: "NCSE Director admits evolution is a game"

So did he deal with the content of her speech at all?

I really don't see that West's final point makes any sense at all. Doesn't the fact that the Manifesto that Scott (et al.) signed refers to "unguided evolution" leave open the possibility of a "guided evolution"? The only thing she's affirming here is that she, herself, believes evolution to have been unguided.

Now if the Manifesto had referred to "evolution, which is by its very nature an unguided process", then West would have something to talk about.

I really don't see that West's final point makes any sense at all. Doesn't the fact that the Manifesto that Scott (et al.) signed refers to "unguided evolution" leave open the possibility of a "guided evolution"? The only thing she's affirming here is that she, herself, believes evolution to have been unguided.

Now if the Manifesto had referred to "evolution, which is by its very nature an unguided process", then West would have something to talk about.

Whats this bull about no conflcit between science and religion?

— Singh

So did he deal with the content of her speech at all?

— Wamba

My impression is that the statement "evolution is unguided" refers not to the question of unseen agents pulling mutational strings (a metaphysical, not scientfic, question, as snaxalotl pointed out), but that "unguided" means that evolution cannot plan ahead. Natural selection is always a generation behind the environment.

Also, there is nothing wrong with an atheist pointed out that there is no conflict between science and faith. You do not need to be a beliver to understand that there are belivers who have the same appreciation for evidence and reason as you. The only relgion that science is in conflict from is strict fundamentalism where only those who accept literal text interpritations are "belivers". And to be honest, evolution is the least of the ways that strict interpritations are inaccurate. You do not need to be a beliver to understand that one can reject an ancient creation myth and still accept the concept of God.

snaxalotl is correct, but it is hard to operationalize what he says. There may be some person to whom the suggested changes in phraseology make a difference, and if you think you are in the presence of such a person, then, by all means, give it a shot. I suspect, however, that the class of persons who would accept snaxalotl's phrasing and actually think about the issue while rejecting the more common phrasing is rather small. Indeed, I suspect that the number of people who perceive, and would be moved by, the difference between "no evidence of guidance" and "unguided" is in the three digits world-wide.

Anytime someone says something like "evolution is unguided" when they really mean "the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks", they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

— snaxalot

Scientists really need to start putting disclaimers in everything they write saying "Elements of this paper may suggest workings of nature not under the direct micromanagement of God. This is not intended by the authors, who are open to the possibility that everything was in fact carried out by God in a way that was indistinguishable from what we would expect if God didn’t do it."

— Mike, with tongue firmly in cheek,

One, teaching ID in public schools is a straw man objection that should have been dropped sometime back during the Cambrian Explosion. ID leaders are not arguing for that, and haven't for a long time.

— Thinking Christian

I'm not going to bother telling that story over again, it's been told too often with too little effect. The head already hurts from banging against the brick wall of ID opponents who refuse to engage what we're really saying.

— Thinking Christian

Two, van Meers describes ID as lacking scientific relevance and being entangled with religion. The first of these is wrong and the second is distorted. The relevance question reminds me of Richard Dawkins's written response to the now-famous question asked of him in an interview, "to 'give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.'"

— Thinking Christian

And what's irrelevant about researching, say, the question of apparent irreducible complexity? Sure, there have been bare outlines of responses to IC (skeletal, hopeful, promissory responses), like Miller's Type Three Secretory System explanation to the flagellum. The TTSS explanation was inadequate in the first place, since it omitted so many steps, and left us with just a promise that there must be an answer for the rest. And now we're learning that the TTSS probably arose after the flagellum, which makes its usefulness in leading to the flagellum (shall we say) a tad doubtful.

— Thinking Christian

It seems to me that our friend PvM has resorted to the time-tested rhetorical strategy of sloganeering. His Panda's Thumb audience is conditioned to think religion is bad, science is good;

— Thinking Christian

not in regard to "meaning," or "values," as long as they are divorced from actual knowledge and thus rendered virtually effete, but in terms of knowledge itself. And van Meers's use of the word "panic" in his blog post's title is worthy of nothing more than a disgusted smirk. Read West's article to see for yourself how much "panic" he's displaying. PvM is practicing emotional engineering here, mere sloganeering--with no content whatsoever.

— Thinking Christian

Most ID opponents do in fact engage IDers, with devastating results.

I wish it were so. Even “devastating results,” if they really applied to the arguments, would represent a welcome change from tactics that often address straw men (as here), or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

Tom G, it would help if ID proponents actually provided evidence that they actually engaged in scientific research. As far as I can see, becoming a proponent of Intelligent Design also entails a total cessation of research. Case in point, why hasn't Michael Behe written any reports, or why hasn't Dempski ever actually tried to apply his explanatory filter to explain prehistoric lifeforms? Where are all those research projects the Discovery Institute are planning on doing? Why hasn't it started on a single project?
It would also help if ID proponents could demonstrate they were capable of using logic and critical thinking skills beyond quote mining or lying. Tell me how making a video of Judge John Jones farting shows that the people at the Discovery Institute are making good use of their time, please. This is why people have coined the term "Egnorance" for Dr Michael Egnor, a brain surgeon who, among other things, once tried to suggest that the reason why Tennessee barred the teaching of evolution was because biology textbooks, such as "A Civil Biology", were racist, nevermind eugenics was quite alive and well in that state at that time.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/egnor_mangles_the_history_of_e.php

A minor aside referring back to the 'unguided evolutionary change' bit - this actually seems to be a quote from the Wikipedia article on the Humanist Manifesto III document. If the complete article here is correct:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php

http://tinyurl.com/22wmvo

... then evolutionary theory doesn't even get a mention.

It does in the Humanist Manifesto II however but this is written as:

"...science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces."

At:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.php

http://tinyurl.com/2z66f2

Think the Wikipedia author got carried away a little.

Perhaps unsurprisingly West also missed the context for the part around the 'inevitably of death' in HM III which just makes us Humanists sound like some sort of death cult Goth club for scientists - in context the section reads:

"We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death."

Which does read slightly differently to the manner portrayed. Apparently it's too much effort for West to click on a couple of links to check his information though or provide a rational and reasonable presentation of the Humanist worldview. Funny that - I thought the DI bunch hated that sort of thing ... they seem quite keen to point out what martyrs to the cause they are at every opportunity.

Even “devastating results,” if they really applied to the arguments, would represent a welcome change from tactics that often address straw men (as here), ...

...or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

Anytime someone says something like “evolution is unguided” when they really mean “the so-called evidence for guided evolution is total bollocks”, they are feeding the creationists who are looking for more chances to make strawman arguments about evolution.

The sloganeering charge seems hard to refute, especially when you accuse West of “panic.”

or to personalities (cf. the middle-school use of “Egnorance” often seen in comments here at PT).

Creationists do love to whinge about supposed ad hominems, don’t they? Tom G, try looking up the definition of an ad hominem - you don’t know what it means.

Is panic the right word? They seem to be gearing way up to hit on the only thing that's working for them now: the false dichotomy of accepted science vs. religion (read extremist religion). Remember, the game is all PR. The argument of "growing scientific acceptance" has been shot dead for this decade cycle (it will be back), so they have to hammer away at the other popular concepts that work for them: fairness, social relativism (two sides to every story), bias of the atheistic science cabal, differing world views, etc. To that end its absolutely essential for them to have the public think of the accepted science produced by the real scientific community (the guys and gals that do the work) as the biased output of aggressive atheists. This seems to be the strategy of Ben Stein's upcoming movie.

Is Eugenie Scott the best spokesperson for countering the current creation science fuselage? There are others out there writing books and giving public lectures who are more believable. Doesn't matter that Dr. Scott is telling the truth, and that NCSE has always had the science/religion relationship correct. Its a PR game. When the lyers try to focus attention on her shouldn't we push attention back to all the believing scientists taking a public stand? How do we get more science supporters to take command of the framing instead of just reacting to the latest barrage of lies?

Is Eugenie Scott the best spokesperson for countering the current creation science fuselage?

Right now, on the PT front page, I count at least three posts by PvM directly addressing ID claims with extensive summaries of current scientific research, as well as several other posts by PvM linking to other peoples'/blogs' analyses. That's just PvM alone, not counting the other fine contributions by Arthur and Wesley and Reed and everyone else.

A flip through the comments indicates that "Thinking Christian" has not even made the slightest effort to address these head-on. Just links to this post from his blog, and pretends it's the entirety of the content on PT. I call that dishonest and cowardly.

I guess it's much easier to whine about how nobody understands poor, misunderstood ID than to actually make some positive claims or debate the science. They learned well from Dembski.

Tom G didn’t use the term [ad hominem], GuyeFaux did.

That’s what Tom G was talking about, even if he didn’t throw around the term.

GuyeFaux pointed that out before I did, and more clearly and succinctly, too.

"Egnor’s frequent ignorance about basic biological facts has been repeatedly demonstrated here, amply justifying the use of the mocking term “Egnorance.”"

Absolutely true. May I add that "ignorant" is not really an insult. It's a diagnosis, a statement of fact. And saying "you are ignorant" is also an invitation (a friendly invitation, even) to go and educate yourself on the topic about which you speak without knowing anything.

Of course, Dr Egnor is a very good example for this.

Of course, Dr Egnor is a very good example for this.

NCSE's next Visions edition will include a position statement by the National Council for the Social Studies. DI & the Christan press are reacting. For details and links, see

http://curricublog.org/2007/10/13/ncss-ncse-vision/

Tony Whitson: NCSE's next Visions edition will include a position statement by the National Council for the Social Studies. DI & the Christan press are reacting. For details and links, see http://curricublog.org/2007/10/13/ncss-ncse-vision/