Dissenting from Darwinism

For years I have occasionally tried, with no luck, to find a ~2005 PT comment in which a PT regular (I forget who) reported contacting 6 signatories at random, and said that 5 of them agreed that they had been misled by the vague statement. Once again I ask for help in finding that comment. It may not mean much, but it may warrant contacting more signatories for feedback. I'd certainly like to hear what most of the biologists on the list have to say about common descent and the age of life. I think that it also deserves highlighting which ones were members of anti-evolution activist organizations before signing.

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

The Skip Evans report referred to by ECScott dates back to 2001.
That was the time of original PBS series on evolution. Much has happened since. From Iraq war to Dover decision to Kansas educational board changes to Florida citizens response to ...

More than the judgment by Jones, the complete 8 for 8 rout of the Republican slate in the heart of Penna bible country has shaken the Republican Party establishment. They now know for every vote they get by pushing ID, they lose more than one vote in the independents. The 2006 loss was due to the independents breaking 2 to 1 in favor of the democrats. The Kingmakers for this election is NOT the evangelicals, but the independents.

Further the Dishonesty Institute and its cohorts have lost credibility.
They ran away scared from Dover court room. They made a potty mouth video and in a stroke of genius sent it to Dawkins. They stole video from Harvard. Abbey Smith trounced Behe. After Baylor, even religious univs are scared to touch Dembski with
a ten foot pole. Thomas Moore has conceded that ID is not a "fully worked out scheme". He also has given up seeing his wedge strategy
bearing fruits in his lifetime.

Amazon ranks for their books shows the public sentiment shifting away from them. (Design of Life 20118, Intelligent Design 23052, Design Inference 405039, Uncommon Descent 53065, Edge of Evolution 14395,
God Delusion 232, The Selfish Gene 592, Blind Watchmaker 3562)

This is a good time to contact the biologists in that list of 700,
and profs from prominent American institutions and see if they
still wish to be associated with Distortion Institute.

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise. That’s not evasion, that’s more like common sense.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Has anyone ever written all 700 signatories just to ask them what their take on evolution is? That would make an interesting project. Engage these 700. First I'd want to know if they are aware of what they signed and how it's being used. Then I'd want to know what (if anytyhing) they actually reject in terms of evolution.

I could be wrong but I suspect the results of such a study would not be flattering for the DI.

FL: (Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover--if you'd hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise.

— FL

Has anyone ever written all 700 signatories just to ask them what their take on evolution is?

— Mr_Christopher

No matter who the evilutionsits hired as their legal team (slick or not so slick) the creationsts would have won in Dover had they hired IDC secret weapon and amazing legal mind, LA la Larry Falafala!

Ravilyn Sanders: This is a good time to contact the biologists in that list of 700, and profs from prominent American institutions and see if they still wish to be associated with Distortion Institute.

FL:

Note that I have no doubt that the activists on the list will first try to evade the questions, as they did at the Kansas Kangaroo Court.

Only if you ask professional chemists about the age of the earth. Then they might remind you that they are professional chemists and that the age of the earth is outside their field of expertise. That's not evasion, that's more like common sense. (Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover--if you'd hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Frank J: I’d certainly like to hear what most of the biologists on the list have to say about common descent and the age of life.

Lenny Flank advised me some time back that the Discovery Institute had asked those who signed the statement not to discuss their position with people making inquiries.

For what it is worth, I have done some work on the UK signatories if anyone is interested. IIRC, it showed that less than a third were actually IDers, most of the rest being full blown young earth creationists. It also showed up that many of them had PhDs that were irrelevant to the issue - in engineering or philosophy for example. Stephen Meyer was amongst them (he did his PhD in the UK). One did not have a PhD. It proved to be honorary and even his 1st (and only earned) degree was not in science.

My conclusion was that an extrapolation from the analysis of UK signatories would suggest that only abut 250 of the 700 or so signatories would be true IDers (i.e. supporting it and not accepting young earth creationism).

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that once a signatory is on the DI list, it's very difficult to get back off. Some of those people have died, but they're still on the list. Is this true?

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Roger Stanyard: Lenny Flank advised me some time back that the Discovery Institute had asked those who signed the statement not to discuss their position with people making inquiries.

I vaguely recall reading somewhere that once a signatory is on the DI list, it’s very difficult to get back off. Some of those people have died, but they’re still on the list. Is this true?

— Flint

My conclusion was that an extrapolation from the analysis of UK signatories would suggest that only abut 250 of the 700 or so signatories would be true IDers (i.e. supporting it and not accepting young earth creationism).

— Roger Stanyard

With all the hoopla over the “dissent” list, we have all but forgotten another list that the DI was touting in 2002. One whose members, real scientists whom the DI pretended supported ID in their publications, were questioned by critics of the DI. The DI might not have needed the “dissent” list if they didn’t fail so miserably with that other list. They in fact batted zero. From the linked article:

“NCSE sent a questionnaire to the authors of every publication listed in the Bibliography, asking them whether they considered their work to provide scientific evidence for “intelligent design.” [5] None of the 26 respondents (representing 34 of the 44 publications in the Bibliography) did; many were indignant at the suggestion.”

Frank J: There is an analysis of the UK names by me at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/IntelligentDesignAdvocates

It's out of date but the update has not yet been published.

Basically some of the names we cannot trace so we don't know if they are OECers/YECers/IDers. Others are openly YEC. I wrote to all the names we had doubts about but only one bothered replying.

The issue in the UK is very different from the USA. ID is basically largely irrelevant because it's not needed. There is no separation of church and state in England and teaching religion is compulsory in state schools. (As are religious services.)

The main organisation that has pushed ID is Truth in Science and all of its members are known YECers.

Moreover, all the other creationist organisations in the UK are openly YEC. We have no Hugh Ross, for example.

I doubt whether more than ten people in England have publicly advocated ID. The DI is widely perceived as yet another bunch of American religious wackjobs alongside Scientologists, JWs, Mormons, Prosperity Gospel charlatans, Branch Davidians, Jim Jones and "Hallelujah brothers" types waving their arms in the air. Even the term "born again" is treated with disdain.

You have to remember that the dominant church in England is the Episcopalian church and the British are simply as nowhere as religious as Americans.

Northern Ireland, though, is a different matter.

Totally "OT" - sorry - I just wanted to say thank you to PT and show you the treasure that I found today!
Stacy
----------------------------Posted by Lee Bowman at 2/7/07 6:21 a.m.

To add to the first paragraph above, Judge Jones stated:
" ... ID is not science."

According to the strict rules of verifiability and falsifiability maybe not.

(Side Memo: You guys would have LOST Dover–if you’d hired the evolution attorney you used in Kansas. Fortunately, you guys decided to use a different, much more slick, attorney in Dover.)

Ah, so very telling. See, in the impoverished world of FL’s empirical relatavism, there is no truth of the matter. “Slickness” is all.

I have noted in the past that this statement does not, of course, imply that the signatories deny evolution and common descent and that it is almost certain that "random mutation and natural selection" cannot account for all aspects of the diversity and complexity of life. That said, what is obvious is that most of the signatories have no expertise in areas germaine to evolutionary biology. Over at the Pandas Thumb, Genie Scott notes: "It would be good, indeed, to analyze the rest of them to see if the proportion of biologists in relevant research areas remains a tiny percent of the Ph.D.s signing."

At the risk of being a broken record, I’ll say this again: I don’t care what chemists, physicists, engineers etc have to say about evolution, and neither should you. They have no expertise in the field (and I have none in theirs).

The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke. The whole point of Project Steve is to demonstrate how silly such lists of supposed luminaries are, how very irrelevant such appeals to perceived authority en masse are when the question is one of empirical reality.

In the famous words of Albert Einstein, "They wouldn't need a hundred scientists if they had one single fact."

To Ravilyn Sanders' comment #139556, it appears like the IDers are going the Hollywood route with Ben Stein's "Expelled", to be released on the big screen next month. Once it's out, you should be able to add the box office take to your growing list of defeats for ID.

Sorry, forgot to leave the URL in my last email:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Well, Donald M, I don't quite get your point. Project Steve was a commentary on the DI's "700 scientists". The Discovery Institute parade's the size of that number around "700!" to get credibility. The response was, "Hey, doing the same thing, we can get a lot more than you. In fact, we'll tie one hand behind our back by limiting ourselves to scientists named 'Steve' or some variant and STILL beat you." And, of course, Project Steve dwarfed the Discovery Institute's pathetic numbers. Now, you want the evolutionists to tie one more hand behind their back by limiting the list in ways that the Discovery Institute won't. Of course, it's all a game since the DI is arguing with raw "hey, look at our numbers!"

The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke. The whole point of Project Steve is to demonstrate how silly such lists of supposed luminaries are, how very irrelevant such appeals to perceived authority en masse are when the question is one of empirical reality.

CJO: The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke.

If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution

Oh, and while you’re on the subject, I eagerly await your letter of protest to those who run this very web site, that some of those with opening post privileges are NOT qualified.

The authors are people associated with the virtual University of Ediacara (and thus the talk.origins newsgroup), and various web sites critical of the antievolution movement, such as the TalkOrigins Archive, TalkDesign, and Antievolution.org.

a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education.

What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?

Donald M. being confused: Oh, and while you’re on the subject, I eagerly await your letter of protest to those who run this very web site, that some of those with opening post privileges are NOT qualified.

From the Panda'sThumb About box: And now it is a weblog giving another voice for the defenders of the integrity of science, the patrons of “The Panda’s Thumb”.

One doesn't need a degree to comment on (in)consistency and (un)truthfulness.

Once again Donald needs to be reminded that it takes a lot more credibility to challenge the status quo than it does to affirm it. This becomes an even bigger issue when it comes to an arena like science where successful challenges to the status quo are the things of legend, and where viscious disagreements can break out over the most extreme minutia (as this blog and others attest).

One might as well wonder why, after declaring the Spartans incompetent in battle, and after losing every battle in the field against them, one might be challenged to present military credentials prior to being given further audience with the King.

Donald M: CJO

The difference, there Donald, is that Project Steve is a joke. The whole point of Project Steve is to demonstrate how silly such lists of supposed luminaries are, how very irrelevant such appeals to perceived authority en masse are when the question is one of empirical reality.

I know its meant as a "joke". I said so in my post. But this goes to my over-all point. If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution, then this blog is a joke, too. How many here are evolutionary biologists? What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?

Stanton: So, then, Donald, can you name someone from your lists who has been able to experimentally demonstrate how and why Evolutionary Theory is wrong?

Riger Stanyard,

Very interesting comment. I have read many opinions from those in the UK, but I didn't realize what a difference there is in anti-evolution strategies. Most Americans seem to rush to label any anti-evolutionist a YEC the first sign that they deny common descent. Even Dembski, who only said that he doubted that humans and apes didn't evolve from common ancestors, was quickly labeled as denying common descent. The fact is that Dembski has yet to commit either way about CD (though he's rather clever at baiting-and-switching two interpretations). And Behe explicitly accepts it, but denies the "evolved" part too.

AIUI, here in the US, OEC was becoming dominant before Henry Morris concocted "scientific" YEC. But even before it became unconstitutional to teach "creationism," the YEC-OEC differences, plus the failure of either to fit the evidence forced a "don't ask, don't tell" approach that "evolved" into ID. But from what you say, a lot was probably facilitated by a particularly American aversion to science and fascination with pseudoscience. In particular ID fits very well with a public thinks that nothing mainstream science does is enough (or that scientists conspire to hide the truth and make money), but "alternatives" are exempt from having to provide and test data.

To continue with Torbjorn’s point, this web site is about the attack on science by a minority in mostly the United States. You don’t have to be a scientist to be knowledgeable about that or to be alarmed.

Donald M: Raven

To continue with Torbjorn’s point, this web site is about the attack on science by a minority in mostly the United States. You don’t have to be a scientist to be knowledgeable about that or to be alarmed.

Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called "attack" on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of "attack" on anything. The "attack on science" ruse is a red herring.

Stanton, if Donald shows up in Florida I am going to slap him.

Stanton: Then why is it that all of the school districts, such as those in Texas, Kansas and Florida, that have adopted "criticisms of evolution" into their science curricula have consistently produced students that achieve the lowest test scores in the entire nation?

Donald M: Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring.

Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring.

Donald M. being delusional: Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring.

wikipedia, Wedge document: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Donald M: lied: "The "attack on science" ruse is a red herring.

H. Humbert: The fact remains that you could not be more wrong.

One doesn’t need a degree to comment on (in)consistency and (un)truthfulness.

The attack on science is about as real as World War 11 was.

Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring.

I am disappointed by this. The attack on the signatories is nothing more than an argument from Authority and is a logical fallacy.

A couple of years ago I was arguing with a creationist about the testability of evolutionary theory, the supposed tautology in the definition of survival of the fittest, and Karl Popper.

I worked how to test fitness and showed where Popper was wrong simply by doing a thought experiment and writing a simple program.

Naturally the creationists laughed. Who was I to question the great Karl Popper?

These signatories are probably ignorant about the subject, but maybe they are not and they really do have legitimate doubts based on insights you are not privy too.

Either way, attacking them because their jobs/training isn't evolutionary biology, genetics, etc, is just crap. It's the sort of trick you get from people losing the argument, and the fact is, we are winning the argument.

I am disappointed by this. The attack on the signatories is nothing more than an argument from Authority and is a logical fallacy.

Ravilyn:

You meant to say "Phillip Johnson has conceded .." Sir Thomas More (staunch Catholic truth-speaker, martyr, saint and author of Utopia) has been dead for centuries. The Thomas More Law Center is named after him - he was killed by Henry VIII for refusing to acknowledge the king as the pope of England, basically. The TMLC is a reactionary Catholic barratry and denialism mill. Johnson's Disco Institute tends to be more Protestant fundie, but obviously not exclusively.

Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring.

Rolf,

If you have been following it that long, you probably noticed that claims like the one about the Earth being 6000 years old first increased (the Morris-Gish era), then decreased (the ID era). It's like they tried first to find a compromise between the "too cold" old-earth and "too hot" flat-earth interpretations, and support it on its own merits, but as an increasing number of activists recognized the futility of that, there was a steady retreat into "don't ask, don't tell." The one constant is that promoting doubt of evolution was always first and foremost.

Thanks for the correction MD. I thought I had posted it earlier, somehow it got lost.

Donald said:
"I know its meant as a “joke”. I said so in my post. But this goes to my over-all point. If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution, then this blog is a joke, too. How many here are evolutionary biologists? What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?"

Um, if you think that only biologists are qualified to speak to evolution, then it truly shows your ignorance of the topic. I am a physicist, but I can speak to evolution in the sense of cosmology, the big bang, and the evolution of the universe. Geologists can speak to the fossil record and development of the earth over the last 4.5 billion years. Chemists can speak to radiometric dating techniques used by biologists, geologists, and physicists. It all ties together, so when some idiot creationist with an agenda from the Disco Institute attacks evolution by natural selection (the venue of the biologists), they are also (at least indirectly) attacking modern physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry, etc.

Donald also said:
"Well then this website is about nothing, because this so-called “attack” on science is a figment of your imagination. Criticizing or questioning evolution does not constitute any sort of “attack” on anything. The “attack on science” ruse is a red herring."

What are you smoking?! All one has to do is read the Disco Institute's own internal memo, the Wedge Document, to show how very real their attack on modern science really is. Hell, they even say they want to replace modern science with a "science" that will be "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"! In fact, here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_document

The Wedge Document was introduced as evidence in the Dover trial, and it was one of the key pieces of evidence that demonstrated quite clearly the agenda of the Disco Institute and other creationist groups. And now that they've been slapped down by the embarassingly public revelation of their own propaganda, the creationists are crying foul and saying that the Wedge either doesn't matter or is being overblown. Give me a break!

To all the PT regulars, do what I do. Whenever I discuss this topic, which I do in public venues 3-4 times a year, I always hand out unedited copies of the Wedge Document. You should see the expressions on people's faces when they read the real agenda behind the Disco Institute. More than anything, I've found that giving someone a copy of the Wedge and letting them read it puts them firmly into the anti-creationist camp... and the irony of it is that it's the Disco Institute's own words doing the job.

Raven,

"It is not just about evolution. Their (and your) mythology is also contradicted by all other sciences including physics, astronomy, history, archeology, geology, and paleontology."

You forgot a few. Let's not forget genetics, biogeography, bacteriology, sedimentology,...
I know you didn't mean to make your list exhaustive. I'm also sure my additions have not completed the list either. Your point is a good one and I am merely reinforcing it. The sciences that must be, at least in part, rejected to take the positions that creationists take are broad and deep. They incluce much of science since the death of Isaac Newton.

Matthew Lowry,

Great idea handing out the Wedge Document! I may do some of the same.

Jim51

While I don't disagree with the overall point of the post, it is exceptionally arrogant to assume that only organismal biologists are qualified to hold opionions about evolution. The field would be decades behind where it is now if it had been left to only organismal biologists.

The most obvious example is RA Fisher, both the father of modern evolutionary biology and of modern statistics (and whose training was primarily mathematical). It is impossible to seperate his achievements in evolutionary biology from those in statistics. The entire field of population genetics would not exist without the work of many people whose primary training was in math or statistics. The same can be said for evolutionary ecology. With the rise of bioinformatics, people with primary training as computer scientists are making major contributions.

My point is not all to run down oranismal biologists. They are obviously the core of the field. However, it is ridiculous to assume that only organismal biologists could have any expertise in evolutionary biology and dismiss others out of hand.

Its another case of Clarke's law, I slightly paraphrase.
If a senior expert says something is possible, he's probably right, if he says its impossible, he's usally wrong.

Steve

vrakj: While I don't disagree with the overall point of the post, it is exceptionally arrogant to assume that only organismal biologists are qualified to hold opionions about evolution. The field would be decades behind where it is now if it had been left to only organismal biologists. [snip] My point is not all to run down oranismal biologists. They are obviously the core of the field. However, it is ridiculous to assume that only organismal biologists could have any expertise in evolutionary biology and dismiss others out of hand.

Steve : Its another case of Clarke's law, I slightly paraphrase. If a senior expert says something is possible, he's probably right, if he says its impossible, he's usally wrong. Steve

Viscous Thinking

(A poem by Max Photon)

Big idiots have little idiots,

That feed on their lucidity.

Little idiots have smaller idiots,

And so on to stupidity.

If it’s something along the lines of “it is impossible to genetically engineer flying armadillos,” then, the senior expert is probably right

The people here are not just up against an uniformed public, but a misinformed one. Whether you are too ignorant to realize this, too blinded by bias to notice it, or too dishonest to admit it is a moot point. It matters little. The fact remains that you could not be more wrong.

actually, dishonesty DOES matter. Dishonesty and disinformation have been the most common tools of the religious right. when it is pointed out, many people, who rightly feel violated by their lies, finally start to realize that science really is where the honesty and legitimate arguments are coming from.

We've seen several former creationists claim that it was the obvious dishonesty exhibited by their former "authority" figures that convinced them to finally look at the reality of the situation.

For years I have occasionally tried, with no luck, to find a ~2005 PT comment in which a PT regular (I forget who) reported contacting 6 signatories at random, and said that 5 of them agreed that they had been misled by the vague statement.

New York Times reporter Kenneth Chang has put this hypothesis to the test and interviewed many of the people who signed the statement and found something which most of the readers of PandasThumb may find unremarkable but which may come to a shock to those who have accepted the Discovery Institute’s claim that there is a scientific controversy. Of the signers who are evangelical Christians, most defend their doubts on scientific grounds but also say that evolution runs against their religious beliefs. Several said that their doubts began when they increased their involvement with Christian churches. Some said they read the Bible literally and doubt not only evolution but also findings of geology and cosmology that show the universe and the earth to be billions of years old.

I'd certainly like to hear what most of the biologists on the list have to say about common descent and the age of life.

I think that it also deserves highlighting which ones were members of anti-evolution activist organizations before signing.

Flint:

If it’s something along the lines of “it is impossible to genetically engineer flying armadillos,” then, the senior expert is probably right

More likely, there would be a problem of taxonomy. Start with an armadillo. Engineer it to be very small, have hollow bones, lose the armor plating, morph the tail into a pair of rotor blades...do we still have an armadillo?

While I don’t disagree with the overall point of the post, it is exceptionally arrogant to assume that only organismal biologists are qualified to hold opionions about evolution.

However, it is ridiculous to assume that only organismal biologists could have any expertise in evolutionary biology and dismiss others out of hand.

I am disappointed by this. The attack on the signatories is nothing more than an argument from Authority and is a logical fallacy.

Flint, Stanton: cladistics.

These signatories are probably ignorant about the subject, but maybe they are not and they really do have legitimate doubts based on insights you are not privy too.

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

Popper's Ghost,

I do recall the "evangelicals" thread, but this is another case of you saying "look, it has a wing," and me saying "look, it has a tail."

To me it would matter little if all signatories belonged to evangelical churches. I also have no doubt that the list includes some honest believers in YEC and OEC, especially among the non-biologists.

I am interested in prior membership in anti-science activist organizations because it undermines the DI's pretense that their list is representative of scientists without a prior commitment to pseudoscience and/or political activism.

I am also interested in what many signatories would admit when they are not in "sales mode." Given the "don't ask, don't tell" efforts of the DI, it may be too late. In the mid 1990s. I suspect that most, if not all biologists on the list would do as Behe did, i. e. at least concede mainstream science chronology and common descent. Maybe that's what the 5 of 6 that I recall did when they thought that they were being questioned in confidence. But now, sadly, I suspect that most respondents would either try to evade the questions, or answer them in the way that they best think will help their side of the culture war.

Flint, Stanton: cladistics.

It would be completely legitimate and even expected for the people who signed the DI statement to explain their position. We are talking about science here. Also religion as some people insist on confusing, tangling up, or conflating the two.

And really, most or all scientists or wannabe scientists on the list wouldn't or shouldn't have a problem with this. Scientists generally aren't reluctant to express their scientific work and views as it is expected of them. Religious fanatics aren't reluctant to express their beliefs either.

The most they could say is "no comment". And that is OK, free country still.

It would be completely legitimate and even expected for the people who signed the DI statement to explain their position. We are talking about science here.

— raven

BTW, I'm not sure if the fact that the DI-prepared list is padded with names DI fellows is a conflict of interest or just a pathetic admission that they can't find enough people outside the organization to sign it.

DI has an editorial at the Seattle PI, touting their list.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/346531_webltrs9.html

Viscous Thinking

What are you smoking?! All one has to do is read the Disco Institute’s own internal memo, the Wedge Document, to show how very real their attack on modern science really is. Hell, they even say they want to replace modern science with a “science” that will be “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”!

DI has an editorial at the Seattle PI, touting their list.

— HDX

Another Luskin quote mine:

http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-iron-pyrite-for-luskin.html

Donald M. being delusional and lying again: So what! Are you suggesting that science can only be consonant with, say, philosophical naturalism or, perhaps, atheism?

Donald M: I will say it again: questioning the efficacy and adequacy of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity over eons of time to produce the entire cosmos and everything in it, including all biological systems on planet earth, does ,not constitute an "attack" on science. It might be construed by some as an "attack" on philosophical naturalism, or maybe even atheism, but since we're talking about science, that hardly seems relevant, wouldn't you agree? Or has Philip Johnson been right all along that modern science really is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science?

Are you suggesting that science can only be consonant with, say, philosophical naturalism or, perhaps, atheism? That might work if you had some scientific confirmation that the properties of the cosmos are such that it must be a closed system of natural cause and effect.

So, other than the possibility that you disagree with the DI’s worldview, I fail to see what the problem is with DI on this point. It most certainly is not an “attack” on science, unless you think science can only be consonant with a worldview that is something other than what the DI proposes.

Donald said:
"So what! Are you suggesting that science can only be consonant with, say, philosophical naturalism or, perhaps, atheism? That might work if you had some scientific confirmation that the properties of the cosmos are such that it must be a closed system of natural cause and effect. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your prespective) there are no scientific research studies confirming such an hypothesis. On the other hand, there’s lots of philosophical speculation about it. But since we’re only interested in science here, I guess we’ll have to forego any criticisms about what worldview science ought to be consonant with. So, other than the possibility that you disagree with the DI’s worldview, I fail to see what the problem is with DI on this point. It most certainly is not an “attack” on science, unless you think science can only be consonant with a worldview that is something other than what the DI proposes. But you’d have a whale of a time trying to demonstrate that!"

Donald makes the same mistake that creationists of all stripes make continually: they (purposely or not) confuse science with philosophy. At some level, I think they believe it, but I also think this is a cynical tactic used to advance the Wedge Strategy. Here's a link on precisely this point of confusing science & philosophy from Talk Origins:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html

As was already pointed out, the process of science (methodological naturalism) does not equate with philosophical naturalism. Many religious people are scientists; for example, Francis Collins, who is an evangelical Christian, is a famous biologist and defender of Darwinian evolution. Another good example is Ken Miller, who is Catholic and testified in the Dover trial against the creationists. Both of these gentlemen are just as accepting of evolution as Richard Dawkins.

Are there non-theists (atheists, agnostics, humanists, deists, pantheists, etc) in the scientific community? Yes there are, but there are also a considerable number of non-theists in the U.S. population (about 15-20% in recent surveys). Whether someone is religious doesn't necessarily preclude them from doing science; whether they allow their beliefs to distort the scientific process is a problem, though. But since Collins and Miller do not try to twist science into conforming with their beliefs, then they're fine scientists, whether or not I agree with their philosophical interpretations of scientific knowledge.

Last, but not least, creationists like Donald often try to turn the evolution vs. creationism argument into "God vs. atheism" - this is a red herring designed to scare religious people into thinking that if they accept evolutionary science, then they have to become evil, nasty atheists. Beyond being insulting to atheists (the vast majority of whom are, like many Christians, good and honest people), this argument is completely false, as there are a huge number of people who are both religious and accept evolution. In fact, there is a growing movement of clergy men and women who are becoming very vocal in this regard. Read more about this effort, called the "Clergy Letter Project" here:

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

If you are religious, or know religious people, pass the link about the Clergy Letter Project on to them. Encourage your priest, pastor, rabbi, mullah, etc to get involved in this effort.

It's my opinion that whenever a so-called "critic of evolution/evolutionism/darwinism" brings up the matter of "philosophical naturalism," he/she/it has immediately and irrevocably disqualified him/her/itself from being able to produce a valid, or even coherent opinion concerning anything scientific, given as how such an argument is used only by Creationists and their flunkeys as a part of a Poisoning the Well fallacy to smear their scientific opponents as being evil evil evil atheistic satanists who want to banish God, kick puppies, eat kittens and push little old cookie-baking ladies into live traffic.

Use of "philosophical naturalism" betrays the alleged critic's lack of understanding Science, especially since Science is only about the description of the Universe, and how it functions, and is not philosophical navel-contemplations about how best to remove God from the picture.

By “questioning the efficacy and adequacy of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity” you are looking for proof of God. If you find proof of God, it would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and it would negate the need for faith. And if you insist despite failing that science be redefined to allow for the possibility of God, you bring scientific advancement to a halt.

The real goal is to preserve the religious viewpoint by equating science with atheism and “philosophical naturalism” in the minds of your followers, such that they end up attacking legitimate science education, in order to prevent people from discovering how wrong religion has been about its cosmology.

Philosophers describe the methods of science as methodological naturalism, i.e. the observation that the methods only work when they use repeatable observations of nature and testable theories built on them. There is nothing in the methods that precludes non-natural agents from acting, there is only the observation that the methods doesn’t work on such cases and so they aren’t science.

Thank you for pointing out that “DI’s worldview” naively fails to measure up as a science, as it proposes to disregard science methods in science and science education. IDC’ist Behe also admitted as much when he in Dover claimed that he would accept astrology as science.

So what! Are you suggesting that science can only be consonant with, say, philosophical naturalism or, perhaps, atheism?

"... and so on to stupidity."

Try Into the Cool.

Donald M: I've expressed my views on the limitations of so-called methodological naturalism many times here, so won't rehearse all that again. Suffice it to say that you and I would strongly disagree on this subject.

Larsson

Thank you for pointing out that “DI’s worldview” naively fails to measure up as a science, as it proposes to disregard science methods in science and science education. IDC’ist Behe also admitted as much when he in Dover claimed that he would accept astrology as science.

This is a total mis-characterization of what the DI is all about. What the DI worldview fails to measure up to is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science. This is a point they make quite clear time and time again. I find the use of IDC (Intelligent Design Creaionism) most interesting. There is no such thing as IDC. Intelligent Design is not a modifier for creationism. The attempt to conflate the two (a la Robert Pennock) is a red herring intended pejoratively to do only some emotive work. In the real world, there's no such thing as IDC. To correct the statement above, Behe is an advocate for ID not IDC. The counter would be to refer to all evolution advocates as, say, AD's. Atheistic Darwinists. Neither atheism nor Darwinism would be well served by that.

Donald M: The counter would be to refer to all evolution advocates as, say, AD's. Atheistic Darwinists. Neither atheism nor Darwinism would be well served by that.

Donald said:
"This is a total mis-characterization of what the DI is all about. What the DI worldview fails to measure up to is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science. This is a point they make quite clear time and time again."

Speaking of mis-characterizations, you insist upon equating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism - or that evolution (modern science) is the same as atheism. Donald, let me say this again... very... slowly...so... you... can... understand: They... are... NOT... the... same... thing!

Anyone can read the links above to see the difference, assuming they take the time.

And the fact that Donald keeps on making this same "mistake" shows that he is quite cynical, in my mind. I think he knows what he's doing. This kind of cynical, "moving the goalposts" method of argumentation is standard practice from the Disco Institute.

Challenge for Donald: So you claim the "DI worldview" (which, by their own admission, must be inherently Christian, as they define Christianity) measures up to the process of science, which is methodological naturalism.

If that is truly the case, name the experiment that can be performed that would falsify the "scientific" DI worldview. If you want to call it science, it must pass this simple test - that an experiment can be performed which would possibly invalidate your hypothesis.

If you want to call it science, then you need to play by the rules of science - just like Collins, Miller, Dawkins, and the rest of the scientific community. You don't get to call it science and then expect everyone to go, "Wow, that's real science!" without being able to back it up with experiments and testing. If all you can do is talk, talk, talk about how awesome your idea is and how everyone should just accept it without scrutiny or demand for experimentation, then you are just being a disingenuous wordsmith. Talk is cheap, pal.

So, Donald, please just name the test of ID. That's all I want to see: a viable, repeatable test of your ideas that could completely invalidate them (that is, shatter your "DI worldview" since you claim it is science). If you cannot come up with such a test, don't call it science and expect not to be laughed out of the room.

You want to "play" science? Fine: put up or shut up.

We await your reply.

***Crickets chirping***

One more question, Donald M.

Why haven't you produced the names of any "dissenting" scientists who have been able to experimentally demonstrate how and why Evolution is wrong, and or experimentally demonstrate how and why Intelligent Design is correct?

Demonstrating either would be cause for a Nobel Prize, and everyone knows that the Nobel Committee loves giving Nobel Prizes to any qualified individual aside from mathematicians.

If it really is the case that nature is not such a closed system, then the possibility that something outside of nature may have played an integral role in formation of the cosmos and various aspects of it, including life on earth, is a live possibility. How is science served by ignoring what could be the truth of the matter?

— Donald M

Or has Philip Johnson been right all along that modern science really is philosophical naturalism masquerading as science?

Not only with atheism, no, but compatible with atheism, yes. And that’s exactly what the DI can’t stand. They refuse to acknowledge any science which doesn’t make belief in a supernatural god mandatory. Their entire goal is to make science submissive to religion.

Theism must suffuse all endeavors, including investigation of the natural world. That’s the attack on science. It’s an attempt to co-opt it so that it will only produce results which the creos find comforting.

It’s the opposite of “going where the evidence leads,” as the liars are so fond of saying. It’s an attempt to impose a religious doctrine over a secular, pluralistic enterprise.

ID has no leverage whatsoever in learning about the physical universe.

Wow, Donald is cranking out straw-men using industrial strength techniques!!!

Again, Donald continues to purposely confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. If he cannot even take the time to read up on what he is supposedly critiquing, then I can only conclude that he is here simply proselytizing his "DI worldview".

Sigh... so Donald, have you come up with that test/experiment of your "DI worldview" yet? You know, the one that could potentially falsify all of your claims? You know, the one that could give your ham-fisted claims that the "DI worldview" is in any way, shape or form scientific in the modern sense some kind of validity? Or are you going to just keep running around in circles with your disingenuous wordsmithing?

We're waiting...

***Crickets still chirping***

Longer answer: It’s the difference between saying, “We don’t know, let’s investigate,” and saying, “It must be something outside nature, and since we have no way of knowing anything about anything outside nature, our investigation has hit a brick wall.” Science is served, indeed made possible, only by ignoring the possibility of magic, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, and anything else that would lead a scientific investigation into either a brick wall or an infinite loop. If you disagree, please suggest some way (other than prayer) of getting information from “something outside nature.”

C'mon Donald, come clean. Admit that you're arguing philosophy, and not science, and you'll come off as someone making an honest argument. As long as you continue to intentionally confuse the issue, you are showing to everyone else on this board that you're just buying into the Disco Institute's propaganda. That or you're just a hack.

Btw, we're still waiting for that experiment... Yawn!

***No sound from the crickets. They've fallen asleep from waiting***

Donald M: I'm more interested in knowing the way things really are. That is to say, in knowing the actual truth about the cosmos, how it came to be and how life on earth got here. And I don't need some arbitrary philosophical stipulations restricting the explanatory resources. I'd prefer for nature herself to tell me where the relevant boundaries of causation lie. That is what real science is about.

Donald M. delusional as usual: Totally disagree. Perhaps you could tell me what a worldview free science would look like?

I for one am not excluding design, a priori, DM.

I'd just say "Demonstrate it".

So far all we've got is bovine excrement.

Think there's a designer? Fine.

Prove it.

Those who have tried have failed, or lied about it.

Meanwhile, why tack on an unnecessary complication?

Mainstream science doesn't consider a designer hypothesis because there is no evidence of a designer.

Incredulity, "we don't know yet", and superstition are not evidence.

How dense can you be?

Donald M,

I have some questions. If they have been answered above, please forgive me for not taking the time to look for them, and just list the comment number.

I'm not concerned how you arrived at them, or what you think the ultimate or proximate causes are, but the questions are:

Do you think that humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs? Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? Please clearly pick 1 of the 4 choices - a best guess will do.

Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.

Donald M.: Why haven't you produced the names of any "dissenting" scientists who have been able to experimentally demonstrate how and why Evolution is wrong, and or experimentally demonstrate how and why Intelligent Design is correct?

Perhaps you could tell me what a worldview free science would look like? There’s no such thing. Why is the imposition of PN acceptable to you…after all its just another worldview doctrine being imposed. But you’re clearly not bothered by that one. Why not?

Donald M: The short answer is that it is not that improbable, in fact it is highly probable that if an intelligent agent from outside nature took action to effect something within nature, that there would be empirical markers, events, phenomenon that we could investigate. Just because we can't investigate some putative ultimate cause, that doesn't mean we can't investigate anything.

The alternative is to believe that nature has to be a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. But that leads to significant problems, too, not the least of which is how to avoid an infinite regress of natural cause and effect. At some point one is forced to simply assert something as "brute" fact ("nature did it"),

which is in the same epistemic boat with respect to science as saying "God did it",

or saying, "we don't know",

which is also in the same boat as saying "we know this is the result of design, but we don't know all the details of how or who" (which, by the way, would be exactly the case if SETI ever identified an intelligently caused signal from somewhere out there).

The simple fact is that unless there is good reason for believing that philosophical naturalism (nature thereby having to be a completely closed system of natural cause and effect) represents the way things really are, and we actually know that, then excluding design -- even design caused by an intelligent agent from outside of nature -- is a very live possibility. Excluding that from even the possibility of consideration in the practice of science does no service to science, and may, in fact, blind science to what really is going on.

No one at the DI, nor any other proponent for ID, myself included, has the goal of making belief in God mandatory. That is simply ludicrous. Anyone is perfectly free to disagree with the DI to their hearts content. But no one, including you, is free to so blantanly mis-characterize their position. This is totally ridiculous.

H. Humbert: Yet you act as if you have evidence that science is somehow repressing. Bollocks. ID has nothing in its favor, so instead it is trying to change the rules of the game so that it need not provide evidence. That's cheating. That's the lie. That's what your defending, Donald.

The short answer is that it is not that improbable, in fact it is highly probable that if an intelligent agent from outside nature took action to effect something within nature, that there would be empirical markers, events, phenomenon that we could investigate

in fact it is highly probable that if an intelligent agent from outside nature took action to effect something within nature, that there would be empirical markers, events, phenomenon that we could investigate. Just because we can’t investigate some putative ultimate cause, that doesn’t mean we can’t investigate anything.

Donald said:
"... which is also in the same boat as saying “we know this is the result of design, but we don’t know all the details of how or who” (which, by the way, would be exactly the case if SETI ever identified an intelligently caused signal from somewhere out there)."

I'm so glad Donald brought up the tired old "SETI = support for ID" argument. As a physics & astronomy instructor, I'm used to hearing this one, as are the folks at the SETI Institute. They are sick and tired of creationists equating their half-baked notions with what SETI is trying to do. Here's what they have to say about it, in part...

http://www.seti.org/news/features/seti-and-id.php

"In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed. Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist."

So, it would appear that creationists like Donald and the Disco Institute do, in fact, end up twisting all kinds of science beyond biology in their quest to spread the "truth" of their "DI worldview".

Can't help fools...

Btw Donald, you seem to have been ignoring my challenge: where's the test/experiment of the "DI worldview"? I mean, c'mon, since the Disco Institute has been doing world-class "scientific" research for over 15 years on this stuff, they must have loads of well-documented, published experiments & tests they can point to at the drop of a hat.

Or... they're full of b.s. and cannot point to any tests because no such tests of the "DI worldview" exist.

Hmmm, I wonder which it is?

***The crickets have woken up and decided to move on to another place that is more stimulating - Donald no longer interests them***

Hmmm... let's suppose Donald and the Disco Institute are correct, and there is solid evidence for a supposed "intelligent agent" beyond nature which controls the universe we see around us. Who or what is the nature of this agent or agents (could be more than one, you know)?

I propose the ID-agent is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go on Donald, prove me wrong! A dare you! I triple dog dare you! Prove to me that your godless ID is any match for the Holy FSM - after all, my God has much bigger balls than your supposed god!

Learn more about the Truth of Our Noodly Master:

http://www.venganza.org

Donald, I hope that you will see the error of your ways and become enlightened by the Truth. May the veil of lies you have been led to believe be lifted from your eyes, lest you risk suffering for all eternity in hellish pits of boiling Ragu and Prego. Save yourself, convert to Pastafarianism and experience the bliss of a heavenly beer volcano & stripper factory.

And never forget this: Pirates are the Chosen People! They shall sit at His Right Side and bask in His Glory for all Eternity as they save the Earth from global warming.

May you all be Touched by His Noodly Appendage - RAmen!!!

Oh, one more thing Donald. The next time I hear about someone like you or the Disco Institute demand that we teach ID as science to school kids, I'll back you up. I believe that we should "teach all views of ID", and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is clearly within the big tent of ID. We tried this recently in Polk County, Florida, but darn it all, those wimpy ID-types pulled back and wouldn't let us have our Science of Noodly Truthiness into the local schools!

We will not be deterred... our day is coming... wait and see!

Donald said: Since it has not been confirmed scientifically that nature is, in fact, a closed system of natural cause and effect, then the efficacy and adequacy of what nature, left to her own devices, can produce is a legitimate inquiry. It does not follow that that translates to a search for “proof” of God.

Scientific advancement does not come to a halt if it turns out that the real truth of a phenomenon under investigation is that is it the result of intelligent intervention in some way.

It's amazing to me how much time Donald, the DI, the makers of Expelled, and all the rest of the Intelligent Design Creationist spending whining about how mean old "science" is too philosophically biased to consider their hypothesis, and zero time actually laying out compelling evidence for their hypothesis. You would think it might occur to them that the first bit is only relevant after they've accomplished the second bit, yet Donald has spurned all requests for evidence. Mmm. Strange, that.

I do recall the “evangelicals” thread, but this is another case of you saying “look, it has a wing,” and me saying “look, it has a tail.”

Do you not see the inherent double standard you are applying here? How is that subtantively different than construing science so that results must fit within the parameters of naturalism?

If it really is the case that nature is not such a closed system, then the possibility that something outside of nature may have played an integral role in formation of the cosmos and various aspects of it, including life on earth, is a live possibility. How is science served by ignoring what could be the truth of the matter?

I suspect that most, if not all biologists on the list would do as Behe did, i. e. at least concede mainstream science chronology and common descent.

Maybe that’s what the 5 of 6 that I recall did when they thought that they were being questioned in confidence.

I ask again, what biologists?

— Popper's Ghost

I realize that this is outside of the realm of your imagination, but I think it highly unlikely that your recollection is correct; that you haven’t been able to find this comment despite searching for it for years is because it doesn’t exist.

— Popper's Ghost

Some may be more tractable to science than trying to reduce all explanation to the laws of physics and chemistry, which is the only option available if the pre-investigation presupposition is that nature has to be a closed system of natural cause and effect.

There is no such thing as IDC. Intelligent Design is not a modifier for creationism.

The counter would be to refer to all evolution advocates as, say, AD’s. Atheistic Darwinists.

Mike Elzinga to Donald M: It is clear from your non-responses to the questions of others on this thread that you have no idea what is involved and what epistemology is all about. But neither do any of the pushers at the Discovery Institute. ... You don’t have to take the word of anyone here on Panda’s Thumb; it is something you can check for yourself.

Donald: Do you not see the inherent double standard you are applying here? How is that subtantively different than construing science so that results must fit within the parameters of naturalism?

Donald: If it really is the case that nature is not such a closed system, then the possibility that something outside of nature may have played an integral role in formation of the cosmos and various aspects of it, including life on earth, is a live possibility. How is science served by ignoring what could be the truth of the matter?

Robin,

As you probably know, they rarely seek funding for relevant research anyway. They figure (alas, correctly) that their target audience won't know, care, or both, but will uncritcally fall for their nonsense about being "shut out" by the "Darwinist orthodoxy."

Heck, ~20 the ~25 I have asked have refused to answer my simple, straight forward questions about what happened and when in biological history. Note that the questions (Comment 139854 above) neither ask for confirmation or denial of a designer, let alone the designer's identity. Yet most or all who did answer felt obligated to add unsolicited arguments against "Darwinism." Just imagine if real scientists worked that way!

I mean, c’mon, since the Disco Institute has been doing world-class “scientific” research for over 15 years on this stuff, they must have loads of well-documented, published experiments & tests they can point to at the drop of a hat.

— Matthew Lowry

Frank J: Robin, As you probably know, they rarely seek funding for relevant research anyway. They figure (alas, correctly) that their target audience won’t know, care, or both, but will uncritcally fall for their nonsense about being “shut out” by the “Darwinist orthodoxy.”

Frank J: Heck, ~20 the ~25 I have asked have refused to answer my simple, straight forward questions about what happened and when in biological history. Note that the questions (Comment 139854 above) neither ask for confirmation or denial of a designer, let alone the designer’s identity. Yet most or all who did answer felt obligated to add unsolicited arguments against “Darwinism.” Just imagine if real scientists worked that way!

This is like complaining that it’s a double standard to construe drilling so that it must result in making holes rather than filling them. If you were to actually grab a drill and try it, you would find that making holes is what drilling is about. Likewise, science is about systematically investigating nature; thus, its results necessarily are about nature. Try it some time, and you’ll find I’m right.

I would agree that some ultimate designer or intelligence may be intractable to the methods of science, but that does not mean that all intelligent causes are intractable. Some may be more tractable to science than trying to reduce all explanation to the laws of physics and chemistry.

I don’t need some arbitrary philosophical stipulations restricting the explanatory resources.

It’s amazing to me how much time Donald, the DI, the makers of Expelled, and all the rest of the Intelligent Design Creationist spending whining about how mean old “science” is too philosophically biased to consider their hypothesis, and zero time actually laying out compelling evidence for their hypothesis. You would think it might occur to them that the first bit is only relevant after they’ve accomplished the second bit, yet Donald has spurned all requests for evidence.

IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design. What’s denied is that any of these can be taken to be evidence for actual design, even in principle, because we already know a priori that nature posses all the creative power she needs through the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity to explain everything

The compelling evidence has been laid out many times. IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design.

This is a recurring theme. I quote only the most recent incarnation of opaobie'sDonald's argument, which is that the adaptive complexity we see in nature, in and of itself, constitures "evidence," for any position. It does not. In fact, it's a clear example of circular reasoning. The adaptive complexity we see in nature is the question at issue. It is the very thing that needs explaining. Science proceeds from the observation that adaptive complexity abounds in the natural world and makes further, systematic observations in order to formulate a hypothesis and a methodology for testing it. The practice of this human activity has resulted, as it so often does, in a rejection of the common-sense notion that all this adaptive complexity must have sprung fully formed from the Creator's forge. In fact, all the actual evidence (the result of detailed observation and hypothesis testing) has revealed that all life is related and that adaptations arise from the differential reproduction of forms favored by the environment. This is not a matter of "two opposing interpretations of the same data." The creationist interpretation arises from naive observation, not filtered by methodological rigor. It is in fact fostered by an unwillingness to engage with the actual data. As such, it belongs nowhere near the science curriculum, which is dedicated to the outcomes of a methodology, not philosophical musings on the (unexamined) complexity of the natural world. And, most importantly, no "worldview" or philosophical commitment is required to engage with this data. It is value-free information, and the wide diversity of religious beliefs held by practicing scientists testifies to this universality.

The compelling evidence has been laid out many times. IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design.

— Donald M

However, no one has ever put forth any actual arguments to demonstrate that it isn’t true because no one has any scientific argument to demonstrate that nature is (and in principle must be) a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. And unless and until it can be demonstrated that that is the case, claims that there is no, and in principle can’t be, any thing that could possibly be evidence for actual design in nature are bluff and bluster and ID is a vry live possibility.

The compelling evidence has been laid out many times. IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design. What’s denied is that any of these can be taken to be evidence for actual design, even in principle,

The [less than] compelling evidence fiction [for "design"] has been laid out many times.

yes, yes it has, ducky.

more's the pity for you.

IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design. What’s denied is that any of these can be taken to be evidence for actual design, even in principle, because we already know a priori that nature posses all the creative power she needs through the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity to explain everything

Fundamental to many of Donald's claims is the lack of understanding, so common among creationists, of the difference between experimental confirmation of a hypothesis, and the already existing data on which the hypothesis was formed. To them, it all falls under that huge tent of "intepretation of data". This is why they see nothing wrong with post hoc rationalizations of other people's work, and of course, why they put so little effort into producing their own.

Simple, Stanton: Go- er, the Designer (wink, wink) made it that way. End of discussion. Next?

Next?

fnxtr: Simple, Stanton: Go- er, the Designer (wink, wink) made it that way. End of discussion. Next?

IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design.

Exactly what is CSI (complex specified information)? How is it measured and what are the units? Who does the specifying? Does it refer to a whole organism or just part of an organism or both? If it can’t be measured, how can it be detected?

BTW, perhaps you could also speculate on how the design was (or is being) implemented so we have a better idea of what to look for.

— Richard Simons

Note especially the absence of, “Any questions?” between “…made it that way” and “End of discussion.”

— Bill Gascoyne

If the cosmos is evidence of design, what would it have been like without being designed? Presumably you have considered the possibility at some length.

Though it was never clear how much magic constituted a poof, millipoof or megapoof.

MememicBottleneck:

Exactly what is CSI (complex specified information)? How is it measured and what are the units? Who does the specifying? Does it refer to a whole organism or just part of an organism or both? If it can’t be measured, how can it be detected?

We've been over this before, the units are "poofs". Though it was never clear how much magic constituted a poof, millipoof or megapoof.

Donald M: The compelling evidence has been laid out many times. IC, CSI, the existence of the cosmos and life itself are ALL compelling evidence for design. [...]

Evidence -- that is observations of some phenomenon in nature -- is not evidence per se in that the data does not come with a little label attached telling us what it is evidence for. Rather the observer -- ascientist -- attaches evidentiary status to an observation on the basis of other background principles and facts. Some of those can be -- and indeed are -- philiosophical in nature. It is an unavoidable aspect of doing science.

Thus the claim of "no evidence" where ID is concerned is not really a claim about evidence, but about which background principles are acceptable and which are not. [...]

Of course not. If they evade even the simplest questions, they certainly aren’t going to solicit any. Besides, “Any questions” is our line. Right after “This is your brain on ID.”

Donald said:
"Evidence – that is observations of some phenomenon in nature – is not evidence per se in that the data does not come with a little label attached telling us what it is evidence for. Rather the observer – ascientist – attaches evidentiary status to an observation on the basis of other background principles and facts. Some of those can be – and indeed are – philiosophical in nature. It is an unavoidable aspect of doing science."

Uhhh, except you are again mixing up the process of science with philosophical extrapolations from that process. And, again, you haven't answered my challenge: What is the test for your "DI worldview" that could possibly falsify it?

If you cannot, or will not, answer that question beyond disingenuous wordsmithing (by talking philosophy and crying when we don't magically accept it as "science"), then you have lost ANY AND ALL credibility that you could have possibly earned in this, or any other scientifically credible, forum.

If you are "doing science", then answered the damn question: What is the test for the "DI worldview"?

Donald said:
"Thus the claim of “no evidence” where ID is concerned is not really a claim about evidence, but about which background principles are acceptable and which are not. I suspect that nearly everyone engaged in this discussion would deny that is true."

I don't know about others, but I'm not making a "no evidence" argument. Clearly two people can look at the same evidence and make different philosophical inferences from it. Francis Collins looks at evolutionary biology (which he defends staunchly against charlatans like the Disco Institute) and infers the hand of God; Richard Dawkins sees in the same evidence a blind universe with no God or supernatural beings at all; as for me, I see the Truth, evidence of His Divine Noodly Appendage.

Philosophical interpretations of the evidence isn't the point! The point is that you are making a claim about something which you call science, yet you refuse to name just one test of your claims that could prove them wrong. So, you're just talking smack...

Donald said:
"If it is the actual truth of the way things came to be, then why on earth would we want to blind science to that possibility on the basis of some arbitrary restriction."

Fine, you win Donald. I agree with you - we shouldn't any longer perform science in a "restrictive" manner by demanding that we test our hypotheses. We should just make up whatever sounds good to us philosophically and then argue that anyone who disagrees with us just doesn't know the Truth. There is no need of experimentation in science, no need to go to the lab, no need to make observations of the natural world to see it those observations fit with our predictions. Hell, there's no need to make any predictions at all! Because we know the Truth to be true simply by asserting it!

Bravo Donald. A superb argument!

In closing, I can only say one more thing: here it is!

Folks, though it may be painful, pay very very careful attention to the techniques applied here by Donald. I have seen this many times before, and it can be instructive to see how these folks argue and distort arguments. I suggest that you pass pertinent points of this conversation on to others, such as public school teachers, administrators, and board members. Warn the people in your community about Donald and other DI charlatans, and give them the tools to educate and prepare themselves against future creationist intrusions. I suggest links to Talk Origins, Talk Design, NCSE, the Clergy Letter Project, and the Wedge Strategy.

Attempting to reason with Donald or yell at him is useless. Better to spend your time reasoning with people who can be reasoned with: people who are truly ignorant of the issues involved and don't know what's going on. Talk to them, educate them, point them in the direction of good science, and warn them about the lies told by the Disco Institute and its lackeys.

THAT is how we're going to win the day. Fight the good fight folks!

"I ask again, what biologists?" OK, how about “those who call themselves biologists”?

But I am unaware of anyone else trying to search for me and coming up empty.

I’ll swear under oath that I saw the comment

What’s denied is that any of these can be taken to be evidence for actual design, even in principle, because we already know a priori that nature posses all the creative power she needs through the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy acting through chance and necessity to explain everything…absolutely everything we observe in nature.

No, you’re lying,

put simply, YES!

thanks to all that is someone finally stated it outright.

it's quite simple.

Ducky lies.

he lies to others.

he lies to himself.

EOS

If it is the actual truth of the way things came to be, then why on earth would we want to blind science to that possibility on the basis of some arbitrary restriction.

I have tried, and come up empty, and I’m pretty good at web searches.

— Popper's Ghost

Having watched “quad preachers” on campuses going back into the 1970s, encountering Mark Hausam and other Calvinistic fundamentalists here on PT, and listening to the arguments of the TV preachers harping against evolution, I seem to have detected a pattern of sorts.

— Mike Elzinga

If you cannot, or will not, answer that question beyond disingenuous wordsmithing (by talking philosophy and crying when we don’t magically accept it as “science”), then you have lost ANY AND ALL credibility that you could have possibly earned in this, or any other scientifically credible, forum. If you are “doing science”, then answered the damn question: What is the test for the “DI worldview”?

Donald M: Let me re-phrase your question to make clear why its a red herring. What is the test for the materialistic (or naturalistic) worldview? In other words, where and how has it been confirmed or demonstrated scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? Where and how has it been demonstrated scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that no force or intelligence from outside of nature, even if such exists, has ever or could ever effect any property within nature, even in principle?

This isn't "wordsmithing". You're setting a clear double standard here. You complain that I am attempting (even though I'm not) of trying to force my worldview (or the DI's worldview) on science while on the other hand you demand that I accept your worldview as being the only one that science can have. Yet neither you nor anyone else offers one shred of any sort of coherent argument to demonstrate why anyone should. This entire discussion comes down to that.

Once again it is quite clear that we "stupid, uneducated, ignorant, foolish, whacky" creationists must accept, without question that philosophical naturalism is true without any sort of scientific confirmation or demonstration for it. It is quite clear whose being dogmatic here and who isn't. Unless and until you or anyone else can demonstrate that naturalism is true, then saying that science can only proceed on the basis of that assumption is arbitrary bluff and bluster.

If things were reversed and, say, a theistic worldview restriction were somehow imposed on the scientific process, you would all be making the very same arguments I am in reverse. You'd be asking the very same questions I am in reverse. Sorry, but I reject utterly on philosophical and logical grounds the proposition that science can only proceed under the restrictions of MN.

In other words, Donald, the majority of scientists and science educators reject Intelligent Design not because of philosophical or conspiratorial reasons, but because the proponents of Intelligent Design have made absolutely no effort whatsoever to demonstrate that Intelligent Design is a science.

This is true because the Discovery Institute has made absolutely no effort to produce scientific experiments proving Intelligent Design or disproving Evolution. It is true because you refuse to demonstrate how Intelligent Design can be used to explain things, in fact.

So, either you go to a library and check out a book on science, and learn how science actually works, or just go away.

Donald wrote: Let me re-phrase your question to make clear why its a red herring. What is the test for the materialistic (or naturalistic) worldview? In other words, where and how has it been confirmed or demonstrated scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? Where and how has it been demonstrated scientifically that the properties of the cosmos are such that no force or intelligence from outside of nature, even if such exists, has ever or could ever effect any property within nature, even in principle?

This isn’t “wordsmithing”. You’re setting a clear double standard here. You complain that I am attempting (even though I’m not) of trying to force my worldview (or the DI’s worldview) on science while on the other hand you demand that I accept your worldview as being the only one that science can have. Yet neither you nor anyone else offers one shred of any sort of coherent argument to demonstrate why anyone should. This entire discussion comes down to that.

Once again it is quite clear that we “stupid, uneducated, ignorant, foolish, whacky” creationists must accept, without question that philosophical naturalism is true without any sort of scientific confirmation or demonstration for it. It is quite clear whose being dogmatic here and who isn’t. Unless and until you or anyone else can demonstrate that naturalism is true, then saying that science can only proceed on the basis of that assumption is arbitrary bluff and bluster.

If things were reversed and, say, a theistic worldview restriction were somehow imposed on the scientific process, you would all be making the very same arguments I am in reverse. You’d be asking the very same questions I am in reverse. Sorry, but I reject utterly on philosophical and logical grounds the proposition that science can only proceed under the restrictions of MN.

Sorry the second to last sentence in the first part of my comment should have read.

I suppose we could preface any original research with the statement, “The following observations and the theories used to describe them could have involved an unknown intelligence outside of nature, but then again perhaps there is no unknown supernatural intelligence involved.”

J. Biggs: You apparently don't follow history very well because up until very recently (historically speaking) science was practiced and restricted by using a theistic world view, i.e. note what happened when Galileo refuted Geo-centrism.

Fortunately, most scientists no longer feel the need to shove a square peg in a round hole and manipulate the evidence to support a religious preconception. And the precise reason scientists adopted methodological naturalism is because it worked and produced useful results. Until you can understand the difference between PN and MN, or be honest about the fact that you know there is one, you will remain an intractable quandary not worth solving.

Donald M: Once again it is quite clear that we "stupid, uneducated, ignorant, foolish, whacky" creationists must accept, without question that philosophical naturalism is true without any sort of scientific confirmation or demonstration for it.

It is quite clear whose being dogmatic here and who isn't.

Unless and until you or anyone else can demonstrate that naturalism is true, then saying that science can only proceed on the basis of that assumption is arbitrary bluff and bluster.

I'll bet when Donald was growing up, the refs cheated in every game he lost, and every girl that turned him down for a date was a lesbian.

Donald said:
"Let me re-phrase your question to make clear why its a red herring. What is the test for the materialistic (or naturalistic) worldview?"

Urrr... okay, I'll play ball. Let me just make this easy by listing the tests for evolution as understood through the lens of methodological (not philosophical, don't go mixing them up) naturalism. Actually, the tests for evolution are too numerous to list here, so I shall simply provide some links:

Evidence for the Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

The Age of the Earth
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

That should lead you to whole bunches of tests & experiments and whatnot that verify, through methodological naturalism (i.e., the modern scientific method), the validity of evolution.

Donald said:
"Once again it is quite clear that we “stupid, uneducated, ignorant, foolish, whacky” creationists must accept, without question that philosophical naturalism is true without any sort of scientific confirmation or demonstration for it."

Once again, either intentionally or just because you're an idiot, you have confused methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I'm not claiming that modern science equates with philosophical naturalism; YOU ARE! And then you turn around and claim that's what I'm saying, which in your twisted mind justifies the rest of your arguments. You are either extremely dumb or extremely cynical & manipulative - my money's on the second one.

Donald said:
"Sorry, but I reject utterly on philosophical and logical grounds the proposition that science can only proceed under the restrictions of MN."

By "MN" I assume you mean methodological naturalism. Which basically means that you have stated that your definition of "science" is not the modern definition of science. Your method of "science" would include, presumably, whatever supernatural explanations that make you feel good. And if you can do that, then once we open the door to allowing supernatural explanations in science, then others can do the same thing:

So... ID-creationism in biology class...

... astrology in astronomy class...

... the four elements (air, earth, fire, water) in chemistry...

... Transcendental Meditation in physics class...

... Scientology in psychology class...

Wow, the list goes on and on. How would it make you feel, Donald, to have your Christian children forced to accept Scientology as real psychology or Transcendental Meditation as real physics in their science classes? That is what you'd ultimately get if you really opened the door to define modern science as incorporating the supernatural, as you desire. If you say you wouldn't endorse these things, then you're just a hypocrite. But I will assume that you're an honest guy.

I mean, since Michael Behe said in the Dover trial that his definition of modern science would also have to incorporate astrology, then I guess I cannot fault Donald for coming to a similar conclusion here.

Btw Donald, since I listed tests for evolution, when are you going to list the tests for the "DI worldview"?

Or are you just going to go on crying about a conspiracy?

an omnipresent “Intelligent Designer” who’s going around stagehanding everything from the path of neutrinos to the behavior of chromosomes violates Occam’s Razor.

Michael Behe said in the Dover trial that his definition of modern science would also have to incorporate astrology

Stanton Wrote: Actually, it was Copernicus, not Galileo, who first refuted the idea of a Geocentric Universe.

In other words, where and how has it been confirmed or demonstrated scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect?

the properties of the cosmos are such that no force or intelligence from outside of nature, even if such exists, has ever or could ever effect any property within nature, even in principle?

You complain that I am attempting (even though I’m not) of trying to force my worldview (or the DI’s worldview)

Yet neither you nor anyone else offers one shred of any sort of coherent argument to demonstrate why anyone should [accept the scientific worldview].

Unless and until you or anyone else can demonstrate that naturalism is true, then saying that science can only proceed on the basis of that assumption is arbitrary bluff and bluster.

Have you detected any changes too?

J. Biggs --- Methinks you still don't have Galileo Gallili's story quite right.

Once again, Mike Elzinga provides quite insightful analysis. Thank you.

H. Humbert:

Thanks for the complement, but I have to admire the relentless hammering the good people on this thread and this site do on people like Donald M, Mark Hausam, and others. It is this hammering that elicits the responses that eventually reveal the underlying motives of the deceivers who make up and support the anti-science crowd. That includes your comments and questions as well.

J. Biggs said: Stanton Wrote: Actually, it was Copernicus, not Galileo, who first refuted the idea of a Geocentric Universe. ....Copernicus was not persecuted for formulating Heliocentrism while Galileo, as a result of his advocacy and furthering of Heliocentrism, was deemed a heretic, imprisoned and forced to recant. Furthermore, he was not allowed by the church to publish any more of his work. Certainly both astronomers worked somewhat under a “Theistic Understanding” of science, but only Galileo was punished for demonstrating Geocentrism to be inaccurate.

Even so, Martin Luther denounced Copernicus as a heretical, sinful, rabble-rousing astrologer.

My unsupported speculations go the other way too - I would not be surprised if self-proclaimed agnostic David Berlinski turned out to be a closet fundamentalist.

Michael Behe said in the Dover trial that his definition of modern science would also have to incorporate astrology

Sorry, but I reject utterly on philosophical and logical grounds the proposition that science can only proceed under the restrictions of MN.

Unless and until you or anyone else can demonstrate that naturalism is true, then saying that science can only proceed on the basis of that assumption is arbitrary bluff and bluster.

So, if there are any changes, it would seem that they have moved in the direction of a more pretentious “scholarly” analysis that really comes across as a more practiced sophistry.

— Mike Elzinga

What he said was that astrology qualifies as a scientific theory – a failed scientific theory, like ether or phlogiston.

[A] [...] And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory. [...] Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct? A It seems like that.

Donald said:

"Sorry, but I reject utterly on philosophical and logical grounds the proposition that science can only proceed under the restrictions of MN."

Sorry, but I refuse to take aspirin because it hasn't been proven to cure cancer. I mean really, that is the logic being used here.

If science is restricted by methodological naturalism (which it is) then it has limitations. So what? So there are questions science cannot address, maybe even important questions, so what? The point is that science, using methodological naturalism, has been wildly successful at describing and explaining the natural world. And in so doing it has cured diseases, increased the standard of living and increased life expectancy. It has not answered some of the most important philisophical questions, nor will it ever. So what? Methodological naturalism is a tool that should be used appropriately, that's all. Crying that it can't do everything is ludicrous and claiming that it doesn't work is insane.

Now if you think that philosophical questions are important, fine, go ahead and answer them using whatever methods you wish. Of course humans have already had thousands of years to do this and methodological naturalism cannot prevent philosophical approaches. The problem is that those approaches haven't really gotten us anywhere. So go right ahead, use methodological unnaturalism or anything else you want and see where it gets you, no one can stop you. Just don't claim that you don't trust or use the results of science if you live in a modern technological society.

My “retroactive” look that at available writings detected that too, along with less reliance on scripture. But I also noticed that in the past more anti-evolutionists seemed confident of their “evidence” of a young Earth and/or of undefined “kinds” arising independently. Did you notice any of that too?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM: But he also said that he considered astrology already as an untested hypothesis as a theory. Rothshild had him clarify that the failure of today wasn't involved in Behe's definition of theory:

Maybe I am mistaken, but this seeming equivocation between untested hypotheses (astrology) or untestable ideas (ID) with tested theories was as I understand it important, as the decision refers to Behe accepting as science ideas that NAS would not according to their stated definition.

So go right ahead, use methodological unnaturalism…

Mike Elzinga: I agree with you that many of the major anti-evolutionists are scam artists and, I would add, also know that they are. I mentioned on another thread some time ago that I suspect that the guaranteed freedom of religion in the US Constitution has made fundamentalist religion a haven for scam artists. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, most of the televangelists (I would especially include Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell), and I would include the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research, are essentially scams that are protected by the Constitution (well, Kent Hovind ran afoul of the IRS).

Mike Elzinga: I agree with you that many of the major anti-evolutionists are scam artists and, I would add, also know that they are. I mentioned on another thread some time ago that I suspect that the guaranteed freedom of religion in the US Constitution has made fundamentalist religion a haven for scam artists. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, most of the televangelists (I would especially include Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell), and I would include the Discovery Institute and the Institute for Creation Research, are essentially scams that are protected by the Constitution (well, Kent Hovind ran afoul of the IRS).

My “retroactive” look that at available writings detected that too, along with less reliance on scripture. But I also noticed that in the past more anti-evolutionists seemed confident of their “evidence” of a young Earth and/or of undefined “kinds” arising independently. Did you notice any of that too?

[Sigh]… people just want to believe so badly, some are willing to buy into almost anything…

And for the record, in his deposition he did state that astrology qualified as a valid scientific theory as he defined it

One more thing, for the record, unlike ID, astrology actually is testable and it has been tested.

P.S. It's not at all clear that astrology is or ever was a scientific theory even under Behe's broad definition. Here is an article that explores what would be required of a scientific theory of astrology.

Maybe I am mistaken, but this seeming equivocation between untested hypotheses (astrology) or untestable ideas (ID) with tested theories was as I understand it important, as the decision refers to Behe accepting as science ideas that NAS would not according to their stated definition.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said. Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says. Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board. Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”

[why does the stupid software here still fail to display the most recent posts?]

I think we are fooling ourselves if we claim that something only becomes a scientific theory once it is “well-substantiated”; scientific theories only have to be substantiable. And ID fails there. ID also fails to be a proposed explanation, and it is here that Behe is talking out of his ass. As I wrote above, “a scientific explanation is causal and lawful, for only that allows prediction”. “It was intelligently designed” is not an explanation for anything.

Popper's Ghost: It depends on what you mean by "valid". Steady state cosmology qualifies as a scientific theory, but not a "valid" one because it has been falsified. And for that reason it isn't science. Saying that something is science and saying it's a scientific theory are really quite different things, and it is misleading (and deliberately so) to claim that Behe said that astrology is science.

One more thing, for the record, unlike ID, astrology actually is testable and it has been tested.

Yes, exactly. That's why it's foolish and intellectually dishonest to insist that Behe said that astrology is science, when his real crime is to open the door wide enough to let ID in as a scientific theory, when it simply doesn't qualify.

P.S. It’s not at all clear that astrology is or ever was a scientific theory even under Behe’s broad definition. Here is an article that explores what would be required of a scientific theory of astrology.

Another example: According to NAS, Einstein proposed special and general hypotheses of relativity, that only became theories later, once they were well-substantiated. But this is obvious nonsense; whether Einstein's proposals were theories never hinged on how well substantiated they were. They were no mere hypotheses, because they provided a general causal framework for explaining phenomena of a particular class. This universal application over a domain is a characteristic of scientific theories, while a hypothesis is usually a more specific, testable claim, e.g., "gene G is involved in function F". Hypotheses do not turn into theories by being confirmed; they are different sorts of beasts.

We should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that Behe was right to reject the "well-substantiated" part of the definition; that would put us in a better position to criticize what he was wrong about. Even astrology can be cast as an explanatory framework that explains events in people's lives in terms of causal, lawful relationships between celestial and earthly occurrences. Of course it is rather vague and not all that causal, since the earthly occurrences to be explained are far more detailed and varied than the celestial occurrences that purportedly explain them, the purported relationships are contradicted by empirical observation (under an unbiased methodology), and all proposed mechanisms by which the supposed effects occur have been falsified. But ID cannot be cast as an explanatory framework that explains biological diversity in terms of causal, lawful design events, since the proponents of ID refuse to offer up any such laws (general rules), and thus no predictions, and thus nothing that can be tested, and thus nothing that can be falsified, and without even characterizing the designer or the mechanism by which it acts, causality is nowhere to be seen.

Popper's Ghost: Another example: According to NAS, Einstein proposed special and general hypotheses of relativity, that only became theories later, once they were well-substantiated. But this is obvious nonsense; whether Einstein's proposals were theories never hinged on how well substantiated they were. They were no mere hypotheses, because they provided a general causal framework for explaining phenomena of a particular class. This universal application over a domain is a characteristic of scientific theories, while a hypothesis is usually a more specific, testable claim, e.g., "gene G is involved in function F". Hypotheses do not turn into theories by being confirmed; they are different sorts of beasts.

We should be intellectually honest and acknowledge that Behe was right to reject the "well-substantiated" part of the definition; that would put us in a better position to criticize what he was wrong about. Even astrology can be cast as an explanatory framework that explains events in people's lives in terms of causal, lawful relationships between celestial and earthly occurrences. Of course it is rather vague and not all that causal, since the earthly occurrences to be explained are far more detailed and varied than the celestial occurrences that purportedly explain them, the purported relationships are contradicted by empirical observation (under an unbiased methodology), and all proposed mechanisms by which the supposed effects occur have been falsified. But ID cannot be cast as an explanatory framework that explains biological diversity in terms of causal, lawful design events, since the proponents of ID refuse to offer up any such laws (general rules), and thus no predictions, and thus nothing that can be tested, and thus nothing that can be falsified, and without even characterizing the designer or the mechanism by which it acts, causality is nowhere to be seen.

Well, to really dig at what Behe was getting at, we’d have to look at exactly how he’d defined both “science” and “scientific theory”, wouldn’t we? I’m not exactly sure what meaning you are adhering to these terms - could you clarify?

I think it’d probably more accurate to state that Behe was attempting to broaden the definition of a scientific theory so that ID would fall into that definition.

And I think the point Rothschild was making in his cross-examination of Behe was that if he were to do so, then invalidated concepts such as astrology would then have to be considered acceptable as modern scientific theories.

In fact, the modern definition of science as a method of exploring the natural world using only naturalistic explanations, also known as methodological naturalism, didn’t really exist until the mid-19th century.

Astrology definitely made appeals to the supernatural as a means of explaining the world, so in this sense it is very much like ID as proposed by Behe. There were aspects of astrology that were naturalistic, such as the methods employed in measuring the positions of stars & planets, but the causal explanations behind those motions were heavily linked to supernatural agents.

So, when Rothschild nailed Behe on this point about astrology and ID both being a “scientific theory” under Behe’s definition, I think it was due to the fact that both make inferences to supernatural agents to explain the “theory”.

I agree that this is the point that should be focused upon when bringing this up in the future.

However, I’m not sure that you’ll get general agreement on this point from the scientific community.

The explanatory framework of some (though not all) aspects of astrology and pretty much all aspects of ID that I’ve seen from the Disco Institute involve appeals to the supernatural.

Popper's Ghost: But when we talk about "science says", or the science that should be taught in the classroom, we are talking about well-substantiated results. Of course we also want to talk in the classroom about practice, about science in progress, and about illuminating failed theories and hypotheses but with those clearly identified as such. There's room for discussion of alchemy and astrology in the classroom. There's even room for discussion about ID, as long as it is properly characterized as not being science, and why.

And I think the point Rothschild was making in his cross-examination of Behe was that if he were to do so, then invalidated concepts such as astrology would then have to be considered acceptable as modern scientific theories.

And I hold that this was conceptually the wrong thing to do (although it worked to persuade the judge and to ridicule and marginalize Behe), because ID fails to be a scientific theory on its own merits, for reasons that don't apply to astrology.

In fact, the modern definition of science as a method of exploring the natural world using only naturalistic explanations, also known as methodological naturalism, didn’t really exist until the mid-19th century.

That's irrelevant. Regardless of when the modern definition of science was developed, science was being done long before the mid-19th century.

Astrology definitely made appeals to the supernatural as a means of explaining the world, so in this sense it is very much like ID as proposed by Behe. There were aspects of astrology that were naturalistic, such as the methods employed in measuring the positions of stars & planets, but the causal explanations behind those motions were heavily linked to supernatural agents.

You are really reaching here. While astrology started out with supernatural elements because celestial events were attributed to supernatural agents, the modern concept of astrology is not based on supernatural agents, and there's no reason to think that Rothschild, who introduced the subject, was referring to such; he was only referring to the notion that astrology is "a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences". ROthschild was not suggesting that it is in the sense that both are supernatural that astrology is like ID, and this is the first time I have ever seen that proposed.

So, when Rothschild nailed Behe on this point about astrology and ID both being a “scientific theory” under Behe’s definition, I think it was due to the fact that both make inferences to supernatural agents to explain the “theory”.

Well, you're the only one I have ever heard of who thinks so, and I think you're clearly wrong.

I have never heard or read any modern astrologer refer to supernatural agents; rather, they explain earthly events in terms of the positions of celestial bodies, and when someone bothers to ask them how that works they talk about tides or starlight or gravity or somesuch.

As for DI, although they are mostly supernaturalists, they go out of their way to avoid appealing to the supernatural. As for “explanatory framework”, what explanatory framework?

You have ignored all of the points I made in the text you replied to. What causal mechanisms do they offer?

What general rules of action do they propose? What testable claims do they make?

Astrologers make testable claims – claims that have been falsified. The ID folks make such testable – and falsified – claims such as that flagella and blood clotting systems can’t evolve, but these aren’t claims that follow from ID; rather, they are claims from which they suggest ID follows. This is an important distinction.

Wrong. There are some versions of modern astrology that still make appeals to the supernatural. For example, there’s Vedic astrology. For example, there’s Vedic astrology as practiced in many parts of the Hindu world, which still retains many religious & supernatural elements. There is more to astrology than looking at the horoscope in your local paper (which is, btw, known as “sun-sign astrology”).

There is no (natural) explanatory framework. We agree on that.

None - at least no natural ones. I think we’ll agree that “God did it” doesn’t count ;)

But aspects of astrology are like ID in that they have supernatural elements as part of their causal framework.

Recall William Paley’s watchmaker argument, which is essentially the same thing as ID. It was not until the separation of science from philosophy took place that we could start to make real progress.

Of course the leadership began carefully avoiding sectarian language to get around the courts, but the rank-and-file are only starting to get that message.

One individual responding to my letter was essentially claiming that if I had just read the ID literature, Behe, and Dembski, I would know that ID is a science and that this science supported his religion. The implication was that I am an unsophisticated and uneducated dolt.

— Mike Elzinga

Matthew Lowry:

Astrologers make testable claims – claims that have been falsified. The ID folks make such testable – and falsified – claims such as that flagella and blood clotting systems can’t evolve, but these aren’t claims that follow from ID; rather, they are claims from which they suggest ID follows. This is an important distinction.

A valid point. But aspects of astrology are like ID in that they have supernatural elements as part of their causal framework. This isn't true for all schools of astrology, but it is for Vedic astrology, as I pointed out.

Popper's Ghost: I find your attempt to argue that the point about astrology was that both it and ID are supernatural to be pathetic, intellectually dishonest, and quite tiresome; regardless of Vedic astrology, the point of Mr Rothschild has been universally recognized as being that astrology is pseudo-science. He could just as well have referred to homeopathy or phrenology.

There is no (natural) explanatory framework. We agree on that.

Sigh. I asked what explanatory framework, not what natural explanatory framework. If you think they have offered some non-natural explanatory framework, please point it out.

None - at least no natural ones. I think we’ll agree that “God did it” doesn’t count ;)

Sigh. They offer no causal mechanisms, period. "God did it" doesn't count for the basic reason that it isn't a causal mechanism.

But aspects of astrology are like ID in that they have supernatural elements as part of their causal framework.

If you wish to claim that there is a causal framework for ID, with or without supernatural elements, please offer some evidence.

ID is the assertion that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved, therefore they must have been intelligently designed. This fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam coupled with a fallacious false dichotomy isn't the sort of thing to have a causal framework; that's a category mistake.

I pity your students for being subject to your idiosyncratic and factually erroneous views of the history of science.

Eric Finn: You seem to ban any and all reference to supernatural elements in science. While I agree that this a good practical approach, I am not personally sure, how to identify a supernatural element, when I see one. To me, supernatural means something that can't be observed and may not follow any rules (even in principle).

You said that you have expertise in physics. I would like to attempt to find an example in quantum mechanics (I am not fluent in discussing string theories, which you brought up).

Wave functions are not directly observable in the quantum description. Wave functions may not be the best examples here, as they evolve deterministically in time, according to quantum mechanics. However, one might think that the wave function is an aspect of a divine entity. Then, would such a claim, if made, render quantum theory less scientific?

The enormous predictive power of quantum mechanics is the sole reason it has been accepted. It is not accepted because the concepts it uses are particularly “materialistic”.

We have now explanations why and how the “solsten” might have worked. A supernatural explanation would be a misconception now. Do you think that “dark energy” would be a better misconception than “divine power that stretches heavens”? Neither of them explains anything, they are just labels.

What comes to astrology, I find Poppers Ghost’s arguments convincing. Also, I think that professor Behe referred to astrology basically correctly.

Evolutionary theory in biology is known for its predictive power. If ID starts to make predictions and if the predictions were confirmed, I would take ID seriously, no matter how much supernatural it might mix in. I am aware that my position can be argued against.

One would think that being forced to avoid the designer’s identity and obvious Biblical influence, they (again, only the leaders at first) would jump at the chance to stick to the cold, impersonal whats, whens and hows. Instead, the growing trend (again, my “retroactive” observation) to “don’t ask, don’t tell any whats, whens and hows” gives them nothing left to work with except misrepresentation.

Mike Elzinga: Well, this raises and interesting speculation that has rattled around in my head, but I can’t prove it. It has occurred to me that they had already figured out that they went down a dead end and couldn’t do anything with connecting the natural to the supernatural; that there was no science that could be done. By that time the politics and Philip Johnson’s “philosophical” arguments were becoming the driving force and they were swept along with their newly acquired fame and couldn’t back down. From then on it was all bluff.

As I say, I don’t know what was really going on in their heads, but it seems to me that, somewhere along the line, anyone who proposes materialistic links to the supernatural is going to hit the wall and realize it won’t fly (unless, of course, they are really as stupid as some of their pratfalls suggest).

Btw, what the heck happened to Donald M? Is he off spending many days digging up the peer-reviewed research on ID-creationism? [snark]

Is it me, or do the creationists like Donald tend to just pop in, spew their arguments, and run away when they're challenged? My guess is that he ran off to some creationist blog to complain about how mean we all were to him at PT.

Is he a regular on PT (I'm relatively new here), and is this standard behavior for creationist trolls?

In fact, there are some physicists who look at ST as an ID-like argument, since they say that it cannot be tested at all. This is something which we have to get hashed out, and the best way to do that is to run experiments. However, if no experiments are ever proposed, then we have to toss ST into the scientific trash bin.

Is he a regular on PT (I’m relatively new here), and is this standard behavior for creationist trolls?

Mike Elzinga:

In fact, there are some physicists who look at ST as an ID-like argument, since they say that it cannot be tested at all. This is something which we have to get hashed out, and the best way to do that is to run experiments. However, if no experiments are ever proposed, then we have to toss ST into the scientific trash bin.

This raises an interesting issue about what is meant by “something cannot be tested at all”. Does that mean it cannot be tested in principle or it can never be tested in practice?

Many gedanken experiments are not necessarily technologically feasible (doable in practice), but they illustrate that there are no physical obstructions, in principle, to the concept being illustrated.

In the case of string theory, the energies at which verifying tests could be carried out are technologically well beyond what could be achieved by humans in any solar system in this galaxy because the accelerator would be as big as the galaxy itself (so there are not enough material resources to even build the thing, let alone power it). But one can think of using alternative experiments such as improved cosmic ray experiments or indirect experiments at lower energy scales that zero in on other phenomena implied by string theory (these haven’t been worked out yet).

However, experiments purporting to connect the supernatural to the natural are not even feasible in principle, and this is what usually gets glossed over by the ID/Creationists. They are imagining something like how radio communication would appear to people in the Middle Ages and extrapolating to the notion that god detection will simply be a matter of better developed or a more clever application of technology and “scientific” technique.

Somewhere in their imagined research, a miracle occurs, but they never examine this gap.

It has occurred to me that they had already figured out that they went down a dead end and couldn’t do anything with connecting the natural to the supernatural; that there was no science that could be done.

— Mike Elzinga

After Edwards v. Aguillard their names were tainted, but a new generation conceivably could have claimed nearly the same evidence as Morris or Ross (or perhaps for a hybrid of their positions) and just said, as Behe has, that they had no interest in validating the Bible. With Schwabe and Senapathy, one could say that a few have done just that. But they have been drowned out by the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ID crowd. And since ID refused to even take a position like Schwabe, Senapathy, Ross and Morris (OK, Behe did, but it’s too close to evolution for the big tent), it probably made it that much harder to hide their “pander to the fundamentalists at any cost” motivation.

Mike Elzinga: As I mentioned in a previous post, some of those who push ID around here really believe it’s a science (or at least they did before the Dover decision). We are currently in a lull about this issue locally, but as the political campaign gets closer to the election, it will very likely come up as a divisive issue. I actually think the couple of letters I wrote were fairly effective. I didn’t expect that, but some of my former students (some as far away as California) and a number of other people seem to think it halted the local ID campaign. I don’t really know if that is true, but it’s a nice thought.

Incidentally, here are some tips from NCSE on writing your local papers. Use them, they work.

Apparently it isn’t “scientific” enough, and people for the most part don’t buy the idea that science can be that wrong about the age of the Earth. Perhaps OEC is a little more plausible to many because it doesn’t appear to “conflict” with science as much. But we aren’t hearing from them.

— Mike Elzinga

So what part of the entry on Vedic astrology didn’t you understand when it was linked to modern religious traditions?

It may be just that there are more YECs, but I also think that they are in general more sensitive.

Popper's Ghost:

So what part of the entry on Vedic astrology didn’t you understand when it was linked to modern religious traditions?

Non sequitur, retardo.

OECs are part of the gradually dying “mainstream Protestant” denominations, for whom religion is increasingly unimportant, more of a social club or habit.

— Flint

OECs are part of the gradually dying “mainstream Protestant” denominations, for whom religion is increasingly unimportant, more of a social club or habit.

— Flint

Frank J:

I'll assume you have more insight into this than I do. Most of the "Christians" I deal with in everyday life could only be distinguished from atheists with some difficulty. They don't attend church (except maybe for special occasions), don't pray, and in general religion plays only a tiny role in their lives. It doesn't often cross their minds. But the few YECs I know are definitely in your face, saying "Have you found Jesus?" where others would say good morning, pushing pamphlets into your hands, praying aloud in engineering meetings, etc.

Maybe the "born again ID types" are those trying NOT to make waves, willing to try to appease and accommodate everyone in the hopes that the whole irritating argument will wander elsewhere. I don't see these folks hollering "persecution" when their effort to shove their program on others meets resistance or even indifference.

Within the physics community, I think you’ll find a variety of opinion on this particular point.

This is a good point, since before any physical tests were performed, the only thing Einstein had in regards to testing relativity theory were gedanken.

an “untested hypothesis”

Matthew Lowry, there's two things you need to understand about Popper's Ghost. 1) He does not suffer fools kindly. 2) He's usually correct.

In this case, the supposed religious nature of some forms of astrology is a red herring. PG never argued that Vedic astrology wasn't religious because it doesn't matter. The supernatural aspect you keep harping on is quite irrelevant--which is part of Popper's point. Linking to articles on the religious nature of astrology only reinforces the notion that you are failing to understand what is being communicated to you.

H. Humbert: Matthew Lowry, there's two things you need to understand about Popper's Ghost. 1) He does not suffer fools kindly. 2) He's usually correct.

H. Humbert: 2) He’s usually correct.

In this case, the supposed religious nature of some forms of astrology is a red herring. PG never argued that Vedic astrology wasn't religious because it doesn't matter. The supernatural aspect you keep harping on is quite irrelevant--which is part of Popper's point.

Linking to articles on the religious nature of astrology only reinforces the notion that you are failing to understand what is being communicated to you.

Popper’s Ghost: I have never heard or read any modern astrologer refer to supernatural agents

Popper's Ghost: I pity your students for being subject to your idiosyncratic and factually erroneous views of the history of science.

Bill Gascoyne: 3) He defines “fool” as anyone who does not agree with everything he writes, no matter how voluminous (including those of us who have neither the time nor the patience to parse through it all).

It also seems to me that he won’t admit when he’s wrong

Actually I think that most nonscientists do think that science can be that wrong (if not necessarily “is” that wrong) about the age of the Earth - and everything else for that matter. Just ask nonscientists about “chemicals” and you’ll get the picture of how science is always guilty until proven innocent.

I certainly hope PG isn’t some kind of public spokesman for the pro-science side, because I don’t think he’d be very well received.

I agree that my trying to get him to admit this is probably not relevant to the original discussion - he just seems amazingly stubborn.

Mike Elzinga: Don’t let it bother you; he is a bit of a curmudgeon, but he’s on our side.

To me, they are both pseudo-sciences that also make appeals to the supernatural - I’m not seeing the problem here.

The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe 2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed 3. Make testible predictions from that hypothesis 4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions 5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions Nothing in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing. Other scientific studies have focused on such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" phenomena as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". So ID's claim that science unfairly rejects supernatural or non-material causes out of hand on principle, is demonstrably quite wrong.

the fact that ID appeals to the supernatural isn’t really the problem. It isn’t the main reason why ID fails to be science. ID fails to be science because it makes no testable predictions.

Yeah, but Flint, even if you want to argue that they boil down to the same thing in the end, it is the fact that it's determined in the end--that it is a conclusion--which is the important part. Science does not hold an a priori philosophical bias against "supernaturalism" (whatever that may be), despite the contentions of the Donald Ms of the world. ID fails because it can't pony up to the evidence table, not because of science's reliance upon "materialism." It's a distinction worth stressing.

Flint: I've enjoyed reading your posts; you're a positive and thoughtful presence here. Keep up the good work.

Mike Elzinga: PG is probably obsessive-compulsive about logical argumentation and semantics, and he bites down hard on anyone he thinks is too sloppy for his standards. It probably intimidates people into being too cautious around him. But he does miss people’s points at times, and if he realizes it, he apologizes. Don’t let it bother you; he is a bit of a curmudgeon, but he’s on our side.

H. Humbert: Yes, but it’s more than that. If you simply stop at saying “they make appeals to the supernatural” without explaining why that’s a problem then it merely feeds into the erroneous perception that scientists reject the supernatural from consideration a priori. But this is not true, as PG has stressed.

Shebardigan:

Mike Elzinga: Don’t let it bother you; he is a bit of a curmudgeon, but he’s on our side.

I question this assertion, at least as regards the net effect of his contributions. Gratuitous unrelenting hatefulness, even when coupled with nearly-always spot-on analysis, is a net negative. There is neither need nor warrant to move instantly from "your argument is incorrect..." to "you are a fool, a poltroon and a fundamentally dishonest piece of semi-human trash" as an argumentative instrument. If nothing else, it tends to derail the discussion from the substantive to the irrelevant personal. I reiterate: With friends like these...

Well, he's a materialist. And a ghost. Doubting one's own existence makes one crabby.

Anyway, I like Popper. As far as other commenters being intimidated, I have to say that I've weighed my words a touch more carefully in discussions in which he's active, and it's always been a benefit to my own thinking and to whatever I ended up writing. Out here in the ether, it's useful to remember: "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

CJO: Out here in the ether, it's useful to remember: "sticks and stones may break my bones..."

Frank, I think this may be the link you're referring to.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few-biologists.html

(Sorry 'bout the hard link, but I'm having trouble getting my tags to work)

Red Right Hand,

I replied on the other thread.

CJO,

I too take it as constructive criticism to be more clear, in particular to differentiate between my personal speculations (e.g. what IDers believe or understand) and hard, cold facts (e.g. Behe is on record as accepting common descent). The following is at least my personal speculation, and maybe a lot more:

This all highlights the "Catch-22" that defenders of science face in an anti-science culture. If we disagree on anything our theories are perceived as "in crisis," but if we agree, we're perceived as conspiring to protect theories that are "in crisis." Most people give much more slack to pseudoscience of any "kind," because it promises "quick fixes." Never mind that it can't deliver.

If you simply stop at saying “they make appeals to the supernatural” without explaining why that’s a problem then it merely feeds into the erroneous perception that scientists reject the supernatural from consideration a priori. But this is not true, as PG has stressed.

Flint: What I've seen is scientists saying "show me evidence of something, and I'll be glad to investigate it - supernatural or not." But if supernatural MEANS absence of any possible evidence, then this is a failure to communicate hidden behind a meaningless word.

Donald M: I know its meant as a "joke". I said so in my post. But this goes to my over-all point. If only evolutionary biologists are qualified to debate, discuss and have opinions about evolution, then this blog is a joke, too. How many here are evolutionary biologists? What degrees does one need to have in order to be qualified to speak on the issue? what about the staff at the NCSE? What about the other Darwinati like Dennett, Ruse or Forrest?

Donald M wrote "In other words, where and how has it been confirmed or demonstrated scientifically that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect?"

I'm not aware of anyone claiming this, but your point is irrelevant. Science cannot disprove the supernatural; however, science can only address the natural. That is the scope of science. If the supernatural exists, science cannot recognize.

Darwinism Corrected To Tomorrow's Comprehension.

Darwinians, It Is Culture That Drives Evolution!

March 16 2008
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=165&#entry323376

"By plain common sense it is therefore culture, the ubiqitous biological entity, that drives earth life evolution."

March 1 2008
"Culture Is Biology, It Imprints Genetics"

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=165&#entry316631

I. Quotes from "Chimp and human communication trace to same brain region"

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/cp-cah022108.php

" An area of the brain involved in the planning and production of spoken and signed language in humans plays a similar role in chimpanzee communication.

This might be interpreted in one of two ways:

One interpretation of our results is that chimpanzees have, in essence, a ‘language-ready brain'. By this, we are suggesting that apes are born with and use the brain areas identified here when producing signals that are part of their communicative repertoire.

Alternatively, one might argue that, because our apes were captive-born and producing communicative signals not seen often in the wild, the specific learning and use of these signals ‘induced’ the pattern of brain activation we saw. This would suggest that there is tremendous plasticity in the chimpanzee brain, as there is in the human brain, and that the development of certain kinds of communicative signals might directly influence the structure and function of the brain."

II. Quotes from earlier postings in this thread:

Culture Is Biology, It Affects Genetics

The Common Mistake: Genetic Changes Have NOT Made Us Human; Human Culture Has Been Changing Our Genetics.

A. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ahe120607.php

Are humans evolving faster?
Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike.

B. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uow-gsp120507.php

Genome study places modern humans in the evolutionary fast lane.

C. http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=207

From my postings way back in 2005, which cites genetic evidence/demonstration of the workings of human cultural evolution:

- From Science, 2 Sept 2005: "Page's team compared human and chimp Ys to see whether either lineage has lost functional genes since they split.

The researchers found that the chimp had indeed suffered the slings and arrows of evolutionary fortune. Of the 16 functional genes in this part of the human Y, chimps had lost the function of five due to mutations. In contrast, humans had all 11 functional genes also seen on the chimp Y. "The human Y chromosome hasn't lost a gene in 6 million years," says Page. "It seems like the demise of the hypothesis of the demise of the Y," says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.

Chimp's genome has been continuing survival by physiologically adapting to changing environments.

- But look at this: From Science, Vol 309, 16 Sept 2005, Evolving Sequence and Expression:"An analysis of the evolution of both gene sequences and expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees...shows that...surprisingly, genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences".

Surprisingly...???

Human's genome continued survival mainly by modifying-controling its environment.

- And I suggest that detailed study of other creatures that, like humans, underwent radical change of living circumstances, for example ocean-dwelling mammals, might bring to light unique effects of culture-evolution processes and features of evolutionary implications parallel to those of humans.

D. Chapter II, Life, Tomorrow's Comprehension:

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=372

Natural Selection Is A Two Level Interdependent Affair

1) Evolution ensues from genome/genes modifications ("mutations"), inherently ever more of them as new functional options arise for the organism.

2) Modifications of genome's functional capabilities can be explained by the second-stratum organism's culture-life-experience feedbacks to its genome, its prime/base organism. The route-modification selection of a replicating gene, when it is at its alternative-splicing-steps junctions, is biased by the feedback gained by the genome, the parent organism, from the culture-life-experience of its progeny big organism. THIS IS HOW EVOLUTION COMES ABOUT.

3) The challenge now is to figure out the detailed seperate steps involved in introducing and impressing the big organism's experiences (culture) feedbacks on its founding parents' genome's genes, followed by the detailed seperate steps involved in biasing-directing the genes to prefer-select the biased-favored splicing.

4) I find it astonishing that only very few persons, non-professional as well as professional biologists-evolutionists, have the clear conception that selection for survival occurs on two interdependent levels - (a) during the life of the second-stratum progeny organism in its environment, and (b) during the life of its genome, which is also an organism. Most, if not all, persons think - incorrectly - that evolution is about randomly occurring genes-genome modifications ("mutations") followed with selection by survival of the progeny organism in its environment. Whereas actually evolution is the interdependent , interactive and interenhencing selection at both the two above levels.

E. Eventually

Eventually it will be comprehended that things don't just "happen", "mutate", randomly in the base-prime organism, genome, constitution; the capability of the base-prime organisms to "happen" and "mutate" is indeed innate, but things "happen" and "mutate" not randomly but in biased directions, affected by the culture-experience feedback of the second level multi-cell organisms (or the mono-cell communities).

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1