Always willing to read such statements in full context, I decided to check out the quote for myself. On p. 69 we read:The third chapter turns to complexity, the emphasis on which is supposed to distinguish ID from "other versions of creationism" (p. 69). (I will happily follow Fuller in explicitly construing ID as a form of creationism but I doubt that most ID proponents will be quite as accommodating on this point.)
Of course, the well informed reader should know by now that complexity as defined by Intelligent Design is merely the negative base-2 logarithm of the probability that a particular feature can be explained by a particular scientific hypothesis. Once a hypothesis explains a particular "complex" feature, the feature ceases to be "complex". And somewhat surprisingly, Fuller testified, under oath, during the Kitzmiller trial as followsIntelligent Design theory (sic) differs most markedly from other versions of creationism by the emphasis it places on complexity.
— Fuller
You can read Fuller's full testimony at Talkorigins: Steve Fuller: Morning session and Steve Fuller: Afternoon sessionQ. Thank you. Do you have an opinion concerning whether intelligent design is creationism? A (Fuller). I do, and it is not.
In other words, Fuller's argument is nothing more than that the role of ID is mostly limited to inspiring a sustained pursuit of scientific inquiry because in the early days, scientists were often motivated by their religious beliefs in pursuing a scientific exploration of the world around them. While historically true, I find the argument that religious faith is a requirement for a sustained pursuit of scientific inquiry somewhat lacking in logic and reason. In fact, it is not clear to me that the correlation between faith and science is not spurious since most scientists of those days all were men of faith. In fact, I could easily list some examples which seem to undermine the claimed correlation, such as the appeal to the supernatural to explain the unknown (something even Fuller's best example, Newton, did not shy away from). Furthermore, I fail to see why Darwinian accounts should exist for the significant of science for Homo Sapiens. The suggestion that Darwinism is somehow the single explanatory factor seems rather simple minded. And yet, Fuller suggest, in what has become a common confusion amongst ID proponents, that there could not exist non religious motivations to pursue science or that Darwinian explanations could never exist. Not only do religious foundations not necessarily lead to good science, especially when religious foundations cause one to reject scientific evidence, it also seems a dubious claim that religion is somehow necessary as a stimulus for scientific inquiry. For instance, we have recent examples from the Young Earth Creationists who insist, based on their religious faith, that science needs to be ignored when it disagrees with their Biblical faith.Non-teleological accounts of the world do not inspire the sustained pursuit of scientific inquiry – and so not surprisingly there are no good Darwinian accounts of science’s own significance for Homo sapiens.
— Steve Fuller
In a wonderful paragraph, Levitt exposes, like Sarkar, many of Fuller's flawed arguments such as:Merely out of mathematical whimsy, I want to consider Fuller’s very extensive discussion of “complexity” and “randomness.” This, as mathematicians and computer scientists are well aware, is a subject that has been thoroughly studied and analyzed for decades, generating a slew of deep results and fertile conjectures. Fuller, however, shows no awareness of the actual mathematical literature (even though much of it is accessible, at the basic level, to anyone with minimal mathematical skill). Instead, he seems content to take ID-theorist William Dembski as his guide.
In a debate between Fuller and Wolpert, Fuller argued thatNone of this is backed up by serious analysis of the working methods and logical structure of biology itself. Fuller complacently views the ascendancy of evolutionary thought as a “rhetorical” rather than a “scientific” development. His principal evidence? The paucity of Nobel Prizes awarded for work on evolution! Of course, he never pauses to consider that under the idiosyncratic organization of the Nobel awards, there is no prize for biology as such. Biologists are smuggled in under the “Medicine and Physiology” category, which is just expansive enough to accommodate ethologists like Lorenz or Tinbergen, but not hard-core evolutionary theorists. In all of these pronouncements, Fuller is hard-pressed to hide his scorn for actual scientists who, it is obvious to him, know much less about what they think and how and why than a social theorist like himself who is enormously content to cite his own work endlessly.
which is why Fuller is quick to identify the designer as God, so why can other ID proponents not be forthcoming about this, especially if "design without a designer" is a science stopper?Steve Fuller: Well, I don’t know what that means. Sorry, that is mysterious. That is a science stopper. A designer without, design without a designer is a science stopper, as far as I am concerned.
Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr. vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005).
In fact, as Matt Brauer pointed out, Fuller was cited 11 times in the final ruling. See also Fuller's expert witness report which helps understand Fuller's position, however whimsical.Moreover and as previously stated, there is hardly better evidence of ID’s relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism. (Fuller Dep. at 67, June 21, 2005) (indicated that ID is a modern view of creationism).
Source In the same video clip, Fuller also admits that the textbook used in the Dover trial (Of Pandas and People) was a very poor textbook and that he said nothing good about it. Fuller's fascinations with ID seem to not be because he necessarily believes that ID has much relevance per se but rather because historically a belief in a Creator has been a foundation for doing science. In addition, Fuller seems rather impressed by (or should it be "under the impression that") ID's claims that it provides a 'worthy alternative' to evolutionary theory. As such Intelligent Design together with evolutionary theory would benefit the science education. Fuller's position is that sociologists like him are in a better position to judge the nature of science than the scientists themselves, and that one need not understand the scientific arguments involved to judge the quality of said science. In fact, like so many ID proponents, Fuller seems to lack much of an understanding of either the science behind evolutionary theory but also Intelligent Design, taking Dembski and Behe's word as the 'Gospel', while largely ignoring the many well qualified critics of their positions. It does not matter, Fuller envisions a science where anyone can 'contribute' and quality is less important than 'participation'. As one reviewer observes:It's on those grounds that I believe Intelligent Design should be supported
Source: Steve Fuller : Designer trouble by # Zoë Corbyn The Guardian, January 31 2006 In this context I also encourage the readers to listen to a discussion between Cohen and Fuller exploring the issues involved in the debate between intelligent design and evolutionary theory. It runs for slightly over an hour but it helps understand Fuller's position and why Fuller's interest is not so much in the details of scientific accuracy, something to be left best to scientists, but rather the argument that ID can contribute to science education through questioning science and providing a foundation on which scientific interest can be explained. Neither one seems particularly relevant nor convincing to me. The point at the end of the day is that since scientists have done good science when they, based on their religious faith, decided to propose scientific mechanisms to explain how God created, Fuller believes that ID is worth to be considered in the science curriculum, even if it is wrong. From a perspective of a non-scientist, Fuller is quick to define the extent of science even though his own comments show that he is not very well versed in the scientific arguments. Of course, other than as an audience for his claims and his books, I doubt that Fuller has much sympathy for the Intelligent Design position. He clearly defines ID's designer to be "God", is not concerned about the continued scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design and is even less worried about his sometimes heretical theological claims. Fuller and Intelligent Design are in many aspects, a "match made in Heaven". In fact, ID's 'loving' embrace of Fuller seems to have extended the Big Tent to include some interesting theological concepts.For Fuller, religion and science are compatible. He complains that evolutionary theory is being taught as dogma. It needs a "critical foil" and ID satisfies that function as well as anything else.
Mike Dunford, states it clearly and succinctly, catching Fuller in yet another scientific inaccuracy:It is almost superfluous to add that Fuller has done little to come to terms with Dembski’s most trenchant critics, actual experts in complexity and information theory, such as Mark Perakh and Jeffrey Shallit, the latter of whom has justifiably damned Dembski’s work as “pseudo-mathematics.” Nor has Fuller been very accurate in describing Dembski’s intended program, which is to demonstrate “mathematically” that the evolution of complex life via natural selection is literally impossible. But to acquaint himself with this now-voluminous literature would violate one of his favorite axioms, viz., that a “social epistemologist” needn’t actually understand science in order to belittle it.
(Steve Fuller, comment 60) As has been pointed out already, Pauling bet wrong. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid. Proteins are polypeptides. The two are very different kinds of chemical. That is really very basic biology - high school level, in fact. (I suspect that Bob Weimann would be somewhat disappointed in you for forgetting that.) The Pauling situation illustrates a number of the problems both with teaching intelligent design and with Steve’s participation in this issue. To begin with, let’s look at what the Intelligent Design people are demanding. They are not demanding equal funding for empirical research. They are not demanding access to the scientific literature. They are not demanding to be allowed to participate in the scientific process. They are demanding to be allowed to bypass research and publication and to place their material in the high school classroom. In the Pauling example, it would be like immediately demanding, prior to the expected experimental confirmation, to teach that protein is the genetic material. When it comes to moving new research into the classroom, science moves very slowly and very, very conservatively. This is done for good reason. The sciences are very complex fields. Conducting and critically evaluating new research requires an enormous knowledge base - if it is to be done competently. Putting brand new, controversial material into the classroom might sound like a good way to stimulate critical inquiry in the students, but critical inquiry in this case requires a knowledge base that students simply don’t have at that level. It’s also a knowledge base that Steve apparently doesn’t have. He speculates in comment 38 that “some design-based paradigm will overtake evolution in about 100 years,” but he doesn’t appear to have the basic knowledge of biology to actually make that an educated guess. He might be basing his opinion on the way that other major scientific revolutions have progressed, but that’s hardly a safe (or particularly relevant) basis for speculating on the outcome of specific cases. Carl Sagan summed that up well, I think:
‘Anything new in science comes when scientific work comes up with something new, and this is unpredictable. At the time that Linus Pauling gambled that the genetic material would be a protein, he knew that it was a gamble and that experimental work would decide it.’ But your own example shows that Pauling DID predict correctly…
By Steve’s own admission, ID has not progressed to the point of formulating or testing hypotheses. How, then, do we know that they aren’t Bozo. If it is possible that they are, why put them in the schools? Similarly, Ben Alpers argues in the same commentsBut the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Which raises a relevant issue namely, is something worth teaching just because it speculates that science may be wrong, especially when it fails to contribute to science in any positive manner, and failing to be 'testable'? Even if one were to accept the (slight) possibility that ID may stumble onto something of scientific interest, why should we accept its premises when ID refuses by its own nature to engage in scientific inquiry? Sure, people have the right to formulate hypotheses based on their religious faith, but the right to speak does not extend to a right to be heard, especially when history has shown them to be unable to listen. In several of his comments, Fuller suggests that the main reason science rejects Intelligent Design is because of its strong roots in Christian theology, ignoring cause and effect. Intelligent Design is ignored by scientists because scientists have looked at its claims and found it to be lacking in content, relevance and accuracy. That in addition, this scientific lack of content can be explained by its roots in theology is just 'icing on the cake'. In the end it all comes down to, what Mike Dunford describes asBut, in fact, Fuller’s analysis of ID involves more than the boring old job of testing its knowledge claims. It involves speculating on the possibility that in the future, in some inscrutible way, ID might generate knowledge claims that are testable. And because we can speculate that it might generate future testible knowledge claims, we must ignore its current lack of such claims and teach it as science in high school classes.
And yet, this is something which seems to be of little concern to both ID proponents as well as Steve Fuller. In fact, this appears to be a great tradition amongst ID defenders such as Phillip 'Godfather of ID' Johnson and Francis Beckwith. Although, I believe that Beckwith's 'love affair' with Intelligent Design has come to a predictable ending. And finally, in 2008, Fuller released yet another book on the topic of intelligent design, titled "Dissent Over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinism" which got a short review in the Guardian:“How can you possibly hope to formulate an informed, independent opinion if you don’t know the underlying science?”
Another, slightly more positive review in the "Times Higher Education" points out thatOnce upon a time, Fuller points out, most science was inspired by the possibility of understanding God's creation. That is true, but it does not mean, as Fuller pretends, that contemporary "ID" is an alternative method of doing science: its remit is strictly anti-science, cynically positing a "God of the gaps" for political reasons. For his part, Fuller happily adopts ID's rhetorical tactics: speaking of biologists' "faith"; forgetting to mention (or merely being ignorant of) the wealth of evidence for evolution in modern biology that wasn't available to Darwin himself; and even muttering about the "vicissitudes" of fossil-dating, thus generously holding the door open for young-Earth creationists, too. The book is an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish, as when evolution is argued to share with astrology a commitment to "action at a distance", except that the distance is in time rather than space. It's intellectual quackery like this that gives philosophy of science a bad name.
So what to make of all this? I believe that Fuller has a sincere though mistaken beliefs about the impact nay necessity of religion (preferably monotheistic) on scientific inquiry and curiosity and while I believe the evidence clearly shows him to be wrong, I can appreciate his position. However, to argue that Intelligent Design deserves a place at the table of science because it sounds plausible and sincere to Fuller and because it serves to 'keep evolutionists' honest seems to be rather a high price to pay. Especially when the request comes from a sociologist who seems to consider actual knowledge about the science involved to be a hindrance to evaluating if something deserves to be treated as science. This is particularly troublesome since so many have shown ID to be scientifically vacuous. It is thus not surprising that Fuller neither explains why ID is scientifically relevant nor explains why evolutionary theory is in need of an 'ID' opponent, and worse, why Fuller relies on the strawman that science and scientists reject ID because of its theological roots.Upholders of theistic evolution usually espouse "methodological naturalism", which Fuller characterises as a "pseudo-philosophy" fuelled by bigotry. I have always understood it to be the view that properly scientific explanations refer only to "natural" (spatio-temporal) data, without denying that other data (like God) may exist, and have some form of causal influence, not falling within the purview of observational and experimental science. Fuller claims it is a conflation of logical positivism (all factual statements must be verifiable) and metaphysical naturalism (only natural causes exist). This claim is puzzling, as methodological naturalism is a term invented precisely to contrast with metaphysical naturalism, and no naturalist is committed to a positivist doctrine of meaning and verification. I cannot see how it is "anti-religious bigotry" to say that God's acts cannot be unambiguously verified by public observation, or repeated, or experimentally tested. Indeed, this seems to be a common religious view, and even to follow from the fact that God is not a material entity and that God's acts obey no general causal laws.
150 Comments
PvM · 25 August 2008
PvM · 25 August 2008
Stanton · 25 August 2008
SkepitcalBill · 26 August 2008
PvM, would you admit that Michael Behe does posit testable hypothesis in The Edge of Evolution? For example, the number of protein binding sites possible due to evolution?
Do you agree that Intelligent design has at least some value as a sounding board for evolution, in the sense that you don't need to run your own restaurant to be a restaurant critic?
386sx · 26 August 2008
Are they serious with this "Altenberg 16" stuff? That's like bigfoot ufo conspiracy crap. Don't they ever read anything? Good lord!
PvM · 26 August 2008
Stanton · 26 August 2008
fnxtr · 26 August 2008
That horrid Coulter thing drew the same parallel about restaurant critics. The simple difference that seems to have escaped her is that facts are not a matter of taste.
snaxalotl · 26 August 2008
there's restaurant critics and restaurant critics. although there's always an element of personal opinion, there's a sliding scale of expertise that correlates with usefulness; at the very bottom there's the critic who knows nothing about food and pompously scoffs at everything he's ever served, and his opinion is completely useless. I think this case is where the restaurant critic analogy applies to ID perfectly.
completely OFF TOPIC - there's a new report that cows have a (vestigial) sense of magnetic direction. Anybody know at which point in cows' ancestry this feature would have the most significance?
Mike Elzinga · 26 August 2008
It appears that Steve Fuller has a bad case of the post-modernist’s brain disease.
Mike Elzinga · 26 August 2008
Chris Lawson · 26 August 2008
To SkepticalBill:
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it counts as a testable hypothesis if no possible results will make you reject it.
Roger Stanyard · 26 August 2008
I was at the Royal Holloway debate some two years back, where Fuller and Wolpert debated ID. (I also did most of te transcrip for the debate so know exactly what was said.)
Fuller started efended the young earth creationist Andy McIntioosh, Professor of Thermodyamics at Leeds University. McIntosh has been at the forefront of trying to get creationism taught in UK state schools and, more recently, has been promoting ID as a front to get it in.
That is through an organisation called truth in Science which consists entirely of YECers but uses Discovery Institute material. It is impossible to conclude that McIntosh and his pals believe that ID is anything but young earth creationism. That they are claiming it is not seems to be nothing more than systematic deception of the public.
MCntosh illustrates the dangers of ID. he is an aeronautical engineer with no qualifications whatsover n the key disiplines, biology and geology, whichhe is arguing are fundamentally wrong. He is actually less qualified than the average non-graduate in the street on the two subjects.
It's worse than that, though, because he is trying to ue the second law of thermodyamnics to show evolutionary theory is wrong. In doing so he has had to twist 2LOT to the extent he has re-written it.
He must be the only professor of thermodynamics in the world who doesn't understand 2LOT. See our blog at http://bcseweb.org.uk/blog/ to get the point. He has replaced 2LOT with what we call McIntosh's Law.
Fuller also has a real problem of credibility when he argues that ID will produce good science. Where are the scientists proposing creationism and ID. The creationists argue that an increasing number dissent from evolutionary theory.
Well, as Fuller is resident in the UK, I have done the research on this. The number of practising scientists in the key ares of biology and geology in the UK that back creationism and/or ID is as follows:
1. Geology
None
2. Biology
One
Long isn't it?
How many Nobel Prizes can we expect from those on this list?
Sorry, but I can't help conclude that the whole shooing match creates nothing but very bad science. McIntosh is my evidence for today. All he has doe is to make the position of Professor of Thermodynamics at leeds University a byword in nonsense, bad physics and, whilst we are at it, bad engineering. He hs riwsted 2LOT to support a position in biology which he is unqualified about.
But then, that's what creationism is. An ideology where all the facts, explanations or evidence have to be made to fit a religious opinion or be rejected and rubbished.
As well all know, science does not give a stuff about indivudals' religious opinions - not mine, not yours and not McIntosh's. What McIntosh is actually doing has nothig tio do with science t all. Truth in Science is in the business of saving souls, nothing more, nothing less. Same with the DI. It is systematic and deliberate lying and deception to claim otherwise.
Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science education (www.bcseweb.org.uk)
Paul Burnett · 26 August 2008
iml8 · 26 August 2008
Stanton · 26 August 2008
TomS · 26 August 2008
Perhaps Fuller's prediction of the future of "Darwinism" belongs in this compilation:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm" The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism" by G. R. Morton.
Stanton · 26 August 2008
iml8 · 26 August 2008
Frank J · 26 August 2008
David Stanton · 26 August 2008
This guy needs a serious lesson in history as well as biology. His argument is like claiming that since people once believed that lightning was a punishment from God that we should still use that as the first hypothesis in every scientific investigation. I guess this sort of nonsense is much easier to say with a straight face if you are completely ignorant of all of history and science. Fortunately, that is the only type of person who is likely to fall for this routine anyway.
k.e. · 26 August 2008
Fuller?
Replies to critics via Demski Town?
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Questioner: "Rabbi, why do Rabbi's always answer a question with a question?"
Rabbi: "What's wrong with that?
Now to an American that might not seem strange since 'begging the question' as a logical fallacy does not = the question automatically follows.
In the real world it means God doesn't logically exist because (any) Holy Scripture simply contains it in writing.
If the final proof that the champion of Eden's dustbowl fingered or puffed some dust or organic soup into the forerunner of DNA when all science has to do is accept that as a fact, without ...er actual proof. Proof merely by assertion by Team ID is scientific proof it seems.
Now not only is the question left unanswered, it need not be asked! Science abhors an unanswered question, believers pray it will go away before another pet myth is shattered….. again.
Fuller must be enjoying his time in England bringing his new logic to the land that made the mistake of putting Darwin in a church burial plot. Single handedly he’s fixing that…rolls eyes.
Good luck with the sheep’s bladder prevention method for earthquakes Mr. Fuller.
I can’t help thinking that Berlinski and Fuller are cut from the same trans Atlantic diasparic cloth. I may be wrong but keep a close ear to the ground Fuller sunshine if Jesus decides to go direct to Billings Montana and the Jellycats running the Pentagon and their suppliers get wind of it, I can’t see why they would need Jerusalem anymore ….do you?
P.S. Obviously for the Set of Humans not including Fuller my use of the words question and begging are ambiguous …you get it.....but he doesn’t.
TomS · 26 August 2008
iml8 · 26 August 2008
Eric · 26 August 2008
It is ludicrous to suggest that we somehow need the religious motivation provided by intelligent design to perform scientific R&D.
First, there's the several billion non-Judeo-Christian people on the planet whose governments also perform R&D. How does Steve explain their motivation?
Second, there's the U.S's R&D expenditures themselves. Approx. 2/3 of funding for drug discovery now comes from private for-profit companies. And the largest single R&D funding agency in the US Government is the Department of Defense. Drug companies and the military - viagra and better tanks. Does anyone seriously believe any of this money is spent out of religious motivation? Does anyone seriously think we need a belief in an intelligent designer to want improved medicine or a strong military?
eric
Eamon Knight · 26 August 2008
Denyse is such a yappy little dog, isn't she?
iml8 · 26 August 2008
ben · 26 August 2008
Ginger Yellow · 26 August 2008
"So what to make of all this? I believe that Fuller has a sincere though mistaken beliefs about the impact nay necessity of religion (preferably monotheistic) on scientific inquiry and curiosity and while I believe the evidence clearly shows him to be wrong, I can appreciate his position. However, to argue that Intelligent Design deserves a place at the table of science because it sounds plausible and sincere to Fuller and because it serves to ‘keep evolutionists’ honest seems to be rather a high price to pay."
I suspect Fuller's enthusiasm for ID is inspired partly by the sincere belief about the necessity of religion that you mention, but also by a philosophical aversion to evolution itself that clouds his judgement about the adequacy of ID to perform the role he wants it to perform. When questioned, he's always very evasive when people ask exactly how ID, which explicitly shuts off research avenues, is supposed to promote inquiry. He has admitted as much himself - among other places, in comments on one of Michael Berube's posts about him, he said that he didn't like the way evolution (as he saw it) denied mankind a privileged position in the world. It seems a pretty poor reason to disapprove of a scientific theory, but then Fuller seems like a pretty poor thinker.
fnxtr · 26 August 2008
dnftt dnftt dnftt dnftt dnftt....
Glen Davidson · 26 August 2008
John Kwok · 26 August 2008
Davod Asterpf · 26 August 2008
I have no substantial quarrel with the evolutionists trying to debunk creationism; however, it doesn't help make the case when you get the facts wrong Linus Pauling Never seriously thought DNA was a protein; he came to realize very early on that it was a nucleic acid. His mistake consisted in proposing a triple helix which of course turned out to be wrong. For a fine discussion of the history of the DNA "race" between Pauling and Watson & Crick, see Anthony Serafini's LINUS PAULING: A MAN AND HIS SCIENCE. This is considered the definitive biography of Linus Pauling
Frank J · 26 August 2008
Glen Davidson · 26 August 2008
Gary Hurd · 26 August 2008
Mark Perakh · 26 August 2008
Until Fuller appeared as a witness for defense at Dover, I never heard his name. From Norman Levitt's detailed critique of Fuller's output, (see in TalkReason) seems to follow that Fuller is a "philosopher of science" who believes that philosophy of science is superior to science itself. He seems to also believe that science is not a search for truth but rather an artificial construct whose conclusions are products of prevailing ideology of scientists, so there is in fact no objective "truth" but only "beliefs." Perhaps I have put it in a way too simplified as compared to Fuller's actual (soooo sophisticated!) concepts. Perhaps. However, the latest discovery by Fuller can hardly be misinterpreted - I mean his assertion that ID differs from creationism by including complexity into its arsenal of arguments, whereas creationism allegedly did not do so. If the quotation in question is indeed what Fuller asserted, then he does not know what he is talking about. Let us give floor to creationists themselves. I guess everybody, including Fuller, would agree that Henry Morris was one of the most prominent creationists. Just look up his post. Arguing against Dembski (and referring to Dembski's attempts to separate ID from its religious source as nonsense), Morris points out that Dembski's concept of specified complexity had in fact been introduced by YEC many years before ID, under a slightly different name of organized complexity. For judging Fuller's "discovery" it does not matter whether organized complexity indeed was identical with specified complexity. What is obvious is that complexity, whatever additional epithets are added to it, was certainly part of creationism's conceptual system and hence cannot be construed as the definitive distinction between creationism and ID. It looks like Fuller is not a reliable source as he is confused about elementary facts. Not much of a surprise here, though - he shares such ignorance (or is it rather a deliberate distortion?) with many of his ID colleagues.
Ginger Yellow · 26 August 2008
Frank, I didn't say what you quoted me as saying. I was quoting PvM. I went on to say that I do agree that his position on religion in science is sincere, but that his support of ID is based at least in part on a bad faith dislike of evolution that has nothing to do with the evidence for it or indeed ID's own merits (or lack of them). Certainly I would agree that he is "in on the scam". Promoting ID is a convenient means for him to push his own sociology-determines-everything view of science and at the same time to knock down evolution.
PvM · 26 August 2008
Bobby is no longer welcome on my threads and I have proposed a PT ban because of his violations of the rules.
Flush
PvM · 26 August 2008
PvM · 26 August 2008
TomS · 26 August 2008
ben · 26 August 2008
If you actually did any criticism, instead of dropping witless one-liners and refusing to actually engage the subject, you wouldn't be banned. Oh well, no loss. Why don't you head over to the pro-ID pages and try expressing the slightest disagreement with the party line; see how long you last. There's a major difference between banning ineducable trolls and suppressing all dissent, troll.
iml8 · 26 August 2008
iml8 · 26 August 2008
Romartus · 26 August 2008
This Fuller fellow is at my old University of Warwick !!!!?? A slap in the face with a wet sponge if he is let anyway near a student outside his chosen profession - or perhaps just a wet sponge anyway !!!
Romartus · 26 August 2008
Any relation to 'X Factor' Simon Fuller ??? Perhaps he has something to say about evolution as well. After all, he has about as much right to write a book about than this Steve Fuller !!!
PvM · 26 August 2008
jk · 26 August 2008
I think that in a way, 'O Leary is the worst out of the whole bunch. Her stupidity is so fundamental, her perceptions of important things so INCREDIBLY skewed, reading one of her articles is like watching Paramedics remove a charred corpse from a car wreck.
iml8 · 26 August 2008
jk · 26 August 2008
Paul Burnett · 26 August 2008
jk · 26 August 2008
ben · 26 August 2008
Frank B · 26 August 2008
Uncommon Descent is a blog site where you can meet all sorts of people you can disagree with. As for showing you evidence, you have been given hyperlink after hyperlink to as much literature and evidence as you can wish for. But obviously you do not wish for it. Creationists can offer you all sorts of debating fun, so off you go, Uncommon Descent, just google it. You can find, that's a good boy or girl. Go get em.
Stanton · 26 August 2008
Paul Burnett · 26 August 2008
Eric · 26 August 2008
Bobby,
If you have no problem with common descent and the development of species, what exactly IS your beef with evolution? After all, you say there's little evidence for Darwinism but I would say that Neil Shubin's finding a tiktaalik skeleton in the exact type of rock and age of rock predicted by evolution is evidence for evolution. But honestly if you don't count that as a prediction of evolutionary theory, I'm at a loss as to what you think evolutionary theory is.
Lets go more general for a second. What "hard evidence" for a theory - any theory - would you accept as confirming it or whatever? What level of proof would you, personally, like to see, before a theory - again, any theory - is taught to students? What's your bar for acceptance?
I really want to know because so far you've basically played debating games. You poke holes, but you propose no solution, no alternative, no teaching strategy, no future experiments, no hypotheses that should be tested, nothing useful.
And this is important because no one's going to wait around for a perfect theory. While you sit and prevaricate about all the problems you find with current theories, drug companies are using TOE to develop vaccines. Nonprofits are using it to develop species preservation strategies. And unless you have an alternative theory that can help them solve these practical problems better than TOE, your debating strategies are worthless. There is no "wait" option. You either propose something of more research value, or you get out of the way.
eric
Scott · 26 August 2008
To the question of historical early scientists having religious motivations for seeking explanations of "God's" world... (This is purely speculation based on vague recollections...)
Could it be that most early Western "scientists" had religious motivations, not because religion was a better motivator of investigation, but because in the West it was the clergy who were both the most educated class (able to read historical texts in Latin and Greek), and (aside from the nobility) the ones with the most time on their hands to devote to long term study and experimentation? Also, (aside from the nobility) wasn't it the Church that had the most money to fund long term study, and the Church would tend to only fund those investigations that had clear "religious" motivations?
Seems at least reasonable to me.
David Stanton · 26 August 2008
OK Bobby here you go:
I.M. Wong and So Su Mi. Major body plan changes in Arthropods through random mutation and natural selection. (2008) Journal of Molecular Evolution and Development 13(4):660-666.
Let us know when you have read the article. We would all love to discuss it with you.
PvM · 26 August 2008
David Stanton · 27 August 2008
I know I'm wasting my time on Bobby because I'm sure he will never read the article. However, for anyone who is actually interested in the evolution of arthropod body plans, here is a brief list of some relevant journal articles. The one with the asterisk is the most germane to the question of mutation and selection and their roles in body plan evolution. I would provide more references but I don't know the plural of asterisk.
Nature 376:420-423 (1995)
Nature 388:682-686 (1997)
American Scientist 85(2):1-10 (1997)
Nature 415:914-917 (2002)
Current Biology 12:R291-R293 (2002)
*Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 12:386-392 (2002)
Annual Review of Genetics 39:95-119 (2005)
PLOS 3(7):e2772 (2008)
Ichthyic · 27 August 2008
"Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution"
hey, at least Fuller was honest in the title.
Evolution does indeed present an insurmountable problem for ID.
what?
you mean the book doesn't actually present that argument?
tresmal · 27 August 2008
I have been following the bobby saga for some time now and I have come to a conclusion:
bobby is Jason Voorhees!
robert · 27 August 2008
Marx not Trotsky noted that the demise of capatilism would be signified by a worldwide acceptance of market capatalism, (not democracy); hmmm! And, a struggle for natural resources between the various markets, users, countries; hmmm!
Science stays, economic systems are maliable.
Frank J · 27 August 2008
ben · 27 August 2008
iml8 · 27 August 2008
On observing PT threads it is interesting to notice
that after a certain number of postings the thread
becomes no longer worth reading. I would estimate
the "half-life" of a thread at, oh, say, 50 postings.
Somewhat along the lines of the half-lives of weather
predictions (about a day or two) and the half-lives of
shoes (six months to a year). Old shoes never die, they
simply tatter away until one has to finally decide to
throw them in the trash. (See also Douglas Adams, "Shoe Event
Horizon".)
White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin.html
stevaroni · 27 August 2008
Stanton · 27 August 2008
Really, this situation is pathetic, in a really heartbreaking sort of way.
After twenty years since Intelligent Design, as proposed by Phillip E. Johnson, was introduced, what does the Discovery Institute have to show for their pet idea?
Nothing but fomenting lies, and encouraging people to conflate gross ignorance of science and scientific processes with "skepticism."
Demonstrating no interest in doing experiments for even 5 years is an irrevocable death sentence for any fledgling science, but, these people want to cloak the entire country in a shroud of pious stupidity.
But, the thing is, what would people like Steve Fuller have to say if the Discovery Institute had its way and purged this country of Evolutionary Theory in the name of Jesus Christ? How long would the US last without medicines or a competent agricultural system?
David Stanton · 27 August 2008
Well Bobby, you have completely failed to convince me that you read the paper. Your grade is an "F". Now, if you care to try again, please answer the following questions in your own words:
(1) What is the title of the paper and who is the author?
(2) What types of mutations are responsible for producing the hox gene complexes presently observed in Arthropods?
(3) When and in what lineages did these mutations arise?
(4) What selection pressures then acted on the hox gene system and what further types of mutations resulted in body plan diversification?
(5) What lineages and body plans have been the most successful in the last 500 million years?
If you can answer these questions then you will see for yourself that random mutations and natural selection have indeed been important in the evolution of Arthropod body plans. Of course they are not the only processes that have occured, but then again, why would they have to be?
Now Bobby, if you don't want to believe any of this, then all you have to do is present some plausible alternative for how Arthropod body plans have changed over time that accounts for all of the genetic and developmental evidence. No one will be convinced by the argument that you don't want to believe it so therefore it can't be true. No one will be convinced by claims that no evidence exists either.
If you can't address the evidence in a meaningful way, no one cares what you believe. Teaching junior high does not make you a scientist. It does however explain where you learned your inevitable style.
Oh and by the way, I think that you need to apologize to PvM for your rude comments about censorship. The man has the patience of a saint and the courtesy that he has extended to you is, IMHO completely unwarranted.
When you are done with Arthropod body plans we can move on to vertebrates. There is so much for you to learn, grasshopper.
Andy G · 27 August 2008
If you haven't seen it yet, Mr. Fuller replied to comments on Ms. O'leary's blog Uncommon Descent under an article entitled "If the Darwinists are Right and Fuller is wrong ... ", posted Aug. 23rd (I won't link 'cause anyone who's interested knows how to find it - don't want to generate too much traffic, but you might find what he has to say interesting).
His comment is #4, so you don't have to scroll down too far.
Here's the money quote I want to keep for if (I sure hope not when) I have to defend a South Florida "Dover" position to school boards:
"I don’t pretend to speak for anyone other than myself in these matters but ID puts itself in an unnecessarily disadvantaged position by hiding the role of the biblical God as the intelligent designer."
As for Ms. O'Leary's article, egads, how did that woman ever get a book published or sold? Maybe I am just dense, but I pretty much cannot understand what she is saying, and I disagree with the parts I think I do understand.
Actually, I am just jealous. I really must not be bright if she has found a way to make money doing this, and I have not.
I need to go home and rethink my life.
Anyway, I would actually read more over there if the comments didn't all end up descending (no pun intended) into what I consider vacuous and useless philosophical exercises. There's a reason we don't follow the real lives of Olympic atheletes and aspiring world-class musicians - that's because watching (and/or listening to) people practice is BORING! Although practice is important, nay, vital, to the end product, what we really care about is the finished product.
But I digress. My point being, it always seems to end up as a philosophical argument, not a scientific one, with the ID people. So why are they pressing so hard to have it included in the science curriculum?
Some of the arguments are interesting and thought-prokoving, and I see no need to specifically exclude them from occuring in the K-12 classroom at an appropriate age (say, 10th grade and above) and in the appropriate setting (a religion class, or philosophy class, or a broad Humanities class, or extra-curricular club organized at least in part for the purposes of discussing such things).
Pardon my rambling ... channeling James Joyce this morning ... I'll stop and back away from the computer now.
Frank J · 27 August 2008
Eric · 27 August 2008
Eric · 27 August 2008
Robin · 27 August 2008
PvM · 27 August 2008
Flush
Bobby has failed to respond as requested and instead chose to behave like a troll.
Dave Thomas · 27 August 2008
PvM · 27 August 2008
Bobby will from now on be summarily deleted, he will be added to a banned list, and any future attempts by him to disrupt will be appropriately dealt with.
Bobby, any attempts to use other aliases to disrupt these threads will be reported as appropriate.
You have been given abundant opportunity to make your case, instead you decided to troll and make Intelligent Design look even more vacuous as it already is.
For that I thank you
Frank J · 27 August 2008
Eric · 27 August 2008
eric · 27 August 2008
eric · 27 August 2008
stevaroni · 27 August 2008
iml8 · 27 August 2008
Henry J · 27 August 2008
Evolution also predicts that where data is available, there should be good agreement between nested hierarchies constructed from (1) comparisons of anatomical structures, (2) DNA comparisons, (3) biochemical comparisons, and (4) fossil records, and that the agreement will improve as more data is collected for each of those areas.
Another prediction is that for species for which there are geographic barriers to travel, close relatives are expected to be near each other.
Henry
iml8 · 27 August 2008
Frank B · 27 August 2008
iml8 · 27 August 2008
Larry Boy · 27 August 2008
Larry Boy · 27 August 2008
Henry J · 27 August 2008
Addendum to my previous comment:
The nested hierarchy predictions do depend on the absence of any significant DNA transfer between species, but as I understand it that assumption generally holds for animals. Microbes OTOH can sometimes be rather indiscriminate in their DNA swapping, and plants sometimes make hybrids.
Henry
Larry Boy · 27 August 2008
PvM · 28 August 2008
James Downard · 28 August 2008
I.M. Wong and So Su Mi. Major body plan changes in Arthropods through random mutation and natural selection. (2008) Journal of Molecular Evolution and Development 13(4):660-666.
Is this the correct citation? Searching for the "Journal of Molecular Evolution and Development" or the specific title come up nil.
Paul Burnett · 28 August 2008
Eric · 28 August 2008
David Stanton · 28 August 2008
I. still waiting for Booby to read the paper by I am Wrong and So Sue Me. It shouldn't be hard to find, it's in volume 13 on page 666.
Sorry guys, but this boob is stuck in juinior high permanently. Ignore all of his crap until PvM can delete it. Time to initiate another flush cycle.
By the way, the rest of the references are for real. Booby's only response - you have to explain this paper to me, I don't understand.
Robin · 28 August 2008
Eric · 28 August 2008
Robin · 28 August 2008
Robin · 28 August 2008
PvM · 28 August 2008
stevaroni · 28 August 2008
David Stanton · 28 August 2008
Bobby,
Please reproduce the abstract for us here so that we can all read it. I am an editor for this journal and I promise that you will not get in trouble for copyright infringement.
PvM · 28 August 2008
PvM · 28 August 2008
PvM · 28 August 2008
Robin · 28 August 2008
David Stanton · 28 August 2008
Bobby,
Prove to me that you will read the paper and I will provide the URL.
By the way, copying insults is not an effective strategy. Do try to be more original next time.
Eric · 28 August 2008
Eric · 28 August 2008
iml8 · 28 August 2008
Scott · 28 August 2008
Mike Elzinga · 28 August 2008
Henry J · 28 August 2008
stevaroni · 28 August 2008
David Stanton · 28 August 2008
"Tell me what we would observe if (a theory) was false."
OK. What would you observe if the "theory" that there was a blue teapot orbiting the moon was false? There you go.
But seriously, if a theory were false, then observations would be inconsistent with the predictions of the theory. Chances are good that the theory would at least have to be modified if it did not yield accurate predictions. Of course, you would still have to come up with a better explanation for the things that the theory did accurately predict before you would discard the theory entirely.
Henry J is correct. The theory of evolution accurately predicted the nested hierarchies observed with both morphological and genetic data and their correlation with the fossil record. The theory could have been falsified, it just wasn't. Even if some other inexplicable observation were made, you would still have to explain the nested hierarchy. Good luck finding a better explanation than common descent.
Paul Burnett · 28 August 2008
stevaroni · 28 August 2008
Stanton · 28 August 2008
Dave Luckett · 28 August 2008
On direct questions, I just had a couple of JW's at the door - they are biblical literalists, among other things - and I asked them why they thought that the scriptures were literal fact. I received a plateful of babble that didn't even rise to the heights of saying that God wouldn't write down stuff that wasn't true. It wasn't as coherent as that. They simply couldn't think about such things. The question, and its answer, lay outside their mental world. Like Matthew Brady, they didn't think about the things they didn't think about.
Essentially, after some difficulty in even couching the question in terms that they could assimilate, I received the statement that the Bible is the inspired word of God, because it is, because we know it is, because it is.
Expecting someone to reply to a question implies that there's actually information that they can impart - that there is some form of thought process that has led to their position. With biblical literalists - at least, the rank and file - I doubt that there is any such process. To anyone who thinks that ideas should be tested against evidence, their position is absurd to the highest degree - and so it is, tested in that way. But here is their secret strength, and the reason why they can never be moved: they don't think like that. In the sense of ratiocination, they don't think about their religion. They simply can't.
Frank J · 29 August 2008
It's always tempting to think that 2 or more faceless names on the Internet are one and the same. It's even a reasonable hypothesis, because sometimes they do turn out to be one and the same. For me it's mind-boggling that so many people can hear so many refutations (unlike the millions of rank and file creationists who hear nothing but feel-good sound bites) and still be so dense. So it's reasonable to suspect that they are actually fewer in number than they claim. OTOH, like many other counterintuitive ideas, they seem less so when one looks at the sheer numbers. With almost 7 billion people in the world, many more of which can string words together than can make sense of them, one can expect many who resort to such nonsense. So in the absence of evidence I guess the simpler hypothesis is that someone who can have a career as the DI's funny man would not waste his time, and risk being caught, hijacking PT threads.
iml8 · 29 August 2008
Frank J · 29 August 2008
Robin · 29 August 2008
Science Avenger · 29 August 2008
Will someone please explain how it is possible that we can send a rover to Mars, but we can't keep an eternally puebescent moron off this board?
Eric · 29 August 2008
Robin · 29 August 2008
Science Avenger · 29 August 2008
chuck · 29 August 2008
chuck · 29 August 2008
That was fast ;)
TomS · 29 August 2008
Frank J · 29 August 2008
stevaroni · 29 August 2008
John Kwok · 29 August 2008
fnxtr · 29 August 2008
stevaroni · 29 August 2008
fnxtr · 29 August 2008
(palm smacks forehead) Oh my Designer, he's right! No-one has ever thought to do an experiment to test whether modern evolutionary theory is a reliable explanation for anything, ever!
Thanks, B! I guess someone better get on that pronto!
David Stanton · 29 August 2008
Booby,
The article I cited was a review article. It contains many references for the primary sources (over 60 of them). The other eight references I cited also have extensive reference sections. Let us know what you think of this experimental evidence. We're all anxiously waiting for your reply. Unless of course you are a coward.
Or, maybe you could just show us your alternative hypothesis. Or, maybe you could give us a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates that mutation and selection could not produce changes in body plans. Or, how about just coming up with some reasons why you think that mutation and selection wouldn't be able to change body plans?
See Booby, the thing is that nobody really cares what you think, so no one feels compelled to prove anything to you. Do your own homework grasshopper, or just piss off.
PvM · 29 August 2008
A good overview of body plans and natural selection is the work by Valentine called "On the origin of phyla" which outlines our best knowledge relevant to body plan (phyla) evolution.
What is quite ironic is that ID proponents are still quoting Valentine's work as showing how Darwinian processes cannot explain the origin and evolution of body plans. Sad how ID 'science' has to continue to misrepresent the work by scientists.
John Kwok · 29 August 2008
John Kwok · 29 August 2008
Robin · 29 August 2008
Robin · 29 August 2008
Henry J · 29 August 2008
Well, that's evilution for ya...
Gary Hurd · 29 August 2008
Scott · 29 August 2008
Thanks, Team, for clearing up my confusion on the "falsification" question. It helps.
Cheers.
fnxtr · 29 August 2008
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Stuart Weinstein · 29 August 2008
I have to say that when I first read this,
I.M. Wong and So Su Mi
I thought it was the beginning or end of joke.