Simon Mundy: The Creation of Confusion

So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily?

So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

The issue of the artificial impression given to students that there is a real scientific controversy is particularly important. It gives a false view of the level at which controversy exists in evolutionary biology--and as we know, it is not at the level of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Rather, any controversy is about mechanisms for particular taxa. Further, to give this false impression also wastes valuable time that is better spent developing student understanding of the science itself, and this is a daunting enough task because students at the high school level often come with very little background that prepares them to understand what science is and how it works.

As for the teaching of the creation stories in Genesis along with other such stories, I suggest that this is more properly done as part of comparative literature in the humanities. This is part of the story of Western Civilization and its relationship to other civilizations. An understanding of the purpose of the Genesis story in this cultural context--that it implies an orderly and lawful universe--prepares the student to understand why the scientific method arose in Christian Europe, and why it is the fruit of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
(Although not Christian myself, I taught science at a Catholic school and I found that I had to teach this in science class in order to explain this connection. This explanation helped students understand the historical context for Galileo and Newton). In any case, religious studies per se are not and should not be part of the government school curriculum.

It gets really pathetic and tiring listening to the same creationist drivel that people like Novparl spew forth, who obviously don't have the slightest idea what science is about versus their religious myths.

It might also be mentioned that there is only one segment of the religious communities that is pushing for its own sectarian view to be given preferred status. The result of this is obvious: This small segment is being given social status as the normative Christian faith; You're not considered a "true Christian" if you don't follow their beliefs. Theists who accept the reality of evolution without denying traditional belief in creation are not asking that this be taught in school science classes.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily? So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily?

So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things?

If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved.

Novparl said: But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

Novparl said: If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily?

[But] there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Garden of Eden fable should be given no more credence than the Hindu belief that the world rests on the back of an elephant.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily? So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily? So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

PvM said: As to the specific examples. Have you even looked at what science has done to explain them?

Palin has studiously refused to say whether she believes in the theory of evolution.

— Simon Mundy

PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools. If the author knows this, then why does he bother to quote someone who doesn't know it, as if to delight in another's ignorance rather than presenting it as your own?

The accountability of misrepresenting ID was sidestepped subtly with the following:

"Indeed, to compromise scientific integrity for the sake of some creationists’ faith, whether it be Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism or their scientifically vacuous offspring, Intelligent Design, is inexcusable."

Yet, it is clear that the definition of ID is not what Mundy was clearly criticizing (which was, namely, religious doctrine), and I am sure you know this. So again, if Mundy's accusations were based on a false misconception of what ID is, then why bother?

Frank J said: I'm guessing that, like McCain, she reluctantly accepts evolution, but unlike McCain, fears that admitting it would risk more votes.

PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools.

— Robb Massey

Democrats can flatly come out against ID and the rest, then forget about it, because nobody who is likely to vote for them is of different opinion.

— iml8

Frank J said: Even now, ~20% (rough estimate from NCSE reports) of those state and local politicians who introduce anti-evolution legislation are Democrats.

Frank J said: PT people are well aware of that. It's not admitted enough to my satisfaction, but to his credit, PvM was careful to add "Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism or their scientifically vacuous offspring [ID]" to his comments on the article.

Robb Massey said: PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools. If the author knows this, then why does he bother to quote someone who doesn't know it, as if to delight in another's ignorance rather than presenting it as your own? The accountability of misrepresenting ID was sidestepped subtly with the following: "Indeed, to compromise scientific integrity for the sake of some creationists’ faith, whether it be Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism or their scientifically vacuous offspring, Intelligent Design, is inexcusable." Yet, it is clear that the definition of ID is not what Mundy was clearly criticizing (which was, namely, religious doctrine), and I am sure you know this. So again, if Mundy's accusations were based on a false misconception of what ID is, then why bother?

Robb Massey said: PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools.

Mr. Massey is correct and I hand him that: the ID people
know better than to try to push straight Biblical
creationism into the public schools, one of the major
reasons being that it would be legally impossible.

I think there is a bit of confusion on both sides of the
fence in that the resistance is phrased as "we don't
want trash science that's just a front for conservative
religions taught in public school science classes". The
core issue is really "we don't want trash science taught
in public school science classes." The fact that it is
a front for conservative religion is a secondary issue.

I believe Judge Jones made this careful distinction. If
the ID crowd actually had legitimate science to push,
they would be able to sell it even if it was
compatible with conservative religious doctrines, but
there's going to be resistance against teaching that
the Moon is made of green cheese no matter what the
motivation for doing so is.

What muddies the distinction is the fact that the
trash science being offered so clearly reflects
conservative religious doctrines, with little or
no basis in any science worth the name. The ID
folk keep trying to hide their tracks on this issue,
claiming they're not classic creationists like Ken
Ham, who not only does not conceal his guidance from
Scripture but is clearly proud of it (I have a certain
respect for that).

However, brief
readings of the O'Luskins of the ID movement; the
fact that the "payload" texts for the public schools
like OF PANDAS & PEOPLE are just classic creation
science tracts with the religious rhetoric (sometimes
poorly) edited out; and the reality that school board
members and other locals working to get ID into the
school are as a good bet going to be straightforward
Bible creationists not much different from Ham tends
to make this disguise unconvincing.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools.

Robb Massey PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools. If the author knows this, then why does he bother to quote someone who doesn’t know it?

Robb Massey said: ...... Yet, it is clear that the definition of ID is not what Mundy was clearly criticizing (which was, namely, religious doctrine), and I am sure you know this. So again, if Mundy's accusations were based on a false misconception of what ID is, then why bother?

Robb Massey said:

PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools. If the author knows this, then why does he bother to quote someone who doesn't know it, as if to delight in another's ignorance rather than presenting it as your own?

The author, nor me suggested that ID wants to teach the Christian Creation story. What the author stated was

. The intelligent design movement represents a desperate attempt to accommodate within American schools the religious fundamentalism that is undiminished—even resurgent—in many parts of the country.

And continues to state that the Christian Creation story is well worth teaching in comparison with other creation stories. The author is also well aware that teaching ID compromises the scientific integrity by suggesting that there exists a high-level disagreement.

The accountability of misrepresenting ID was sidestepped subtly with the following: "Indeed, to compromise scientific integrity for the sake of some creationists’ faith, whether it be Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism or their scientifically vacuous offspring, Intelligent Design, is inexcusable."

So in other words ID was no misrepresented but rather correctly represented as a scientifically vacuous offspring.

Yet, it is clear that the definition of ID is not what Mundy was clearly criticizing (which was, namely, religious doctrine), and I am sure you know this. So again, if Mundy's accusations were based on a false misconception of what ID is, then why bother?

Mundy was criticizing, like I was, the scientific integrity and how ID undermines this because its claims are scientifically vacuous and thus what remains is a religiously charged attempt to introduce 'God' into our classrooms under the guise of 'teaching the controversy'. That Mundy did not just see ID as religious but also as scientifically vacuous is well established in the piece I quoted

But the question of Reiss’s own faith is irrelevant. He is clearly well aware of the fatuity of the intelligent design dogma, and wants time to be taken to explain to children why it has no scientific basis.

Do we really have to repeat the well established history of ID? Yes, ID proponents have become more insistent in their claims that ID is not about the supernatural, and yet, logic and reason, as well as their own words, show clearly a different picture.

Mr. Massey is correct and I hand him that: the ID people know better than to try to push straight Biblical creationism into the public schools, one of the major reasons being that it would be legally impossible.

— iml8

Robb Massey said: PT ought to know by now that the ID movement does not advocate teaching the Christian Creation story and/or the garden of Eden in public schools.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily? So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily? So how come I can't find any time-lines on the evolution of these "simple" things? If evolution is so important, it should be easy to find out how these things evolved. But we must take evolution on faith, I suppose.

And here’s a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion.”

— Paul Burnett

I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Phillip Johnson

And why did Bonsell feel that he had to cast doubt on evolution? Because of some deep-seated scientific issue. Well, not really. In his own words, “because someone died on a cross 2000 years ago, isn’t it time we remembered him?”

— stevaroni

I think there's a certain tendency to overplay rejection
of ID because of its religious conservative basis.
This has the downside of allowing the ID crowd to
complain: "The only reason that that ID is rejected is
because of anti-religious prejudice."

To which the answer is: "No, ID is rejected because it's
completely bogus science. The fact that it's
conservative religion in disguise just makes it more
OBNOXIOUS." If these guys had a real case to make the
religious conservative issue wouldn't matter -- but when
you've got people like Bonsell and Buckingham, not to
mention O'Luskin, it's pretty obvious what's being served
no matter what they claim is on the menu.

"Looks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Walks like a
duck. Quacks like a duck. Might be a duck."

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

I think there’s a certain tendency to overplay rejection of ID because of its religious conservative basis. This has the downside of allowing the ID crowd to complain: “The only reason that that ID is rejected is because of anti-religious prejudice.” To which the answer is: “No, ID is rejected because it’s completely bogus science.

— iml8

Frank J said: Sure, but note how they are quick to have it both ways.

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily?

Dan said:

Novparl said: So you're saying that the brain, DNA, blood circulation, the womb, are all so simple that they all evolved easily?

No one said evolution went "easily" ... that's why the Earth was 690 million years old when life first formed, 4,540 million years old when humanity first formed. Contrast this to the creationism, which maintains that life is so simple that the Earth was 3 days old when life first formed, 6 days old when humanity first formed.

This works great for sowing confusion, but I would emphasize that when it gets to the crunch, the evo science side has an enormous power in its favor: it is justified by the evidence and tells a logically consistent story, not one that shifts depending on the audience, and it matters not if the person telling the story is an assertive atheist or theistic evolutionist.

— iml8

Don’t forget how Creationism mentions that, one week after that, God decided to punish all living things with death, decay, and pain for ever and ever and ever simply because Adam and Eve ate something they were told not to, and that God then attempted to remedy this by exterminating all terrestrial life on Earth that could not fit into Noah’s Ark.

— Stanton

Frank J said: Unfortunately that power is lost on most people, who prefer rhetoric to logic. By no means should we stoop to the level of IDers (quote mining, defining terms to suit the argument, etc.) but we do need more punch in our own sound bites.

IIRC it was Buckingham who said that. Not that it matters, as neither thinks for himself.

stevaroni said: Yeah, at some point the evasions became so deep, I completely lost track of who was lying about what and when.

By no means should we stoop to the level of IDers (quote mining, defining terms to suit the argument, etc.) but we do need more punch in our own sound bites.

iml8 said: I think there's a certain tendency to overplay rejection of ID because of its religious conservative basis. This has the downside of allowing the ID crowd to complain: "The only reason that that ID is rejected is because of anti-religious prejudice." To which the answer is: "No, ID is rejected because it's completely bogus science. The fact that it's conservative religion in disguise just makes it more OBNOXIOUS." If these guys had a real case to make the religious conservative issue wouldn't matter -- but when you've got people like Bonsell and Buckingham, not to mention O'Luskin, it's pretty obvious what's being served no matter what they claim is on the menu. "Looks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Might be a duck." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

1. ID relies on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation and thus isn't science

2. The purpose of ID is to replace science with a specific religious theology (see the Wedge Document)

3. No data in support of ID has been published in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper

PvM said: On OpposingViews, Casey indeed makes exactly that argument. It's important to frame the message as follows

1. ID is scientifically vacuous

2. ID's approach has rendered itself to be vacuous

3. ID refuses to change its approach

4. Lacking scientific relevance, ID's sordid history to get religious viewpoints introduced in public schools is relevant 1. cannot be repeated often enough, just ask any ID proponent how ID explains anything Silence.

James F said: Some powerful corollaries are that to argue point 3, one must invoke a decades-long global conspiracy against ID ...

iml8 said: A conspiracy which, as Derbyshire more or less put it, makes THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION seem fairly trivial in comparison. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

John Kwok said: Do you have a link for that?

Frank J said:

And here’s a 1996 quote from Philip Johnson: “This isn’t really, and never has been, a debate about science. It’s about religion.”

— Paul Burnett

1996?! Funny, 10 years later he suggested that ID might have had scientific promise at one time:

I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that's comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it's doable, but that's for them to prove...No product is ready for competition in the educational world.

— Phillip Johnson

Of course "Expelled" put an end to that pretense (that ID is about the science) forever. Except for the occasional clueless rube (or politician) that they can still fool.

So there we have little quarks running amok ‘cause they’re thinking quarks.

— DavidK

DavidK said: Interestingly enough I ran across a used book entitled "Chance or Design," 1979, by a James E. Horigan, an attorney no less! He precedes Phillip Johnson by some years, but never-the-less makes exactly the same arguments as Johnson regarding intelligent design.

James F said: It can be whittled down to three points:

1. ID relies on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation and thus isn't science

2. The purpose of ID is to replace science with a specific religious theology (see the Wedge Document)

3. No data in support of ID has been published in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper

TomS said: I suggest that it is less complicated than that. ID is simply vacuous. It does not attempt to replace science with anything at all... ID does not suggest...

ID is simply vacuous.

— TomS

eric said: FL and other pro-IDers on this site have occasionally supported the idea that science should be limited to observation, not hypothesis formation (the 'stamp collecting' model) ...

My favorite early adopter of the term “intelligent design” is John Phin, whose 1908 book, The evolution of the atmosphere as a proof of design and purpose in the creation… was openly theistic...

— Paul Burnett

Does FL seem to be Larry Fafarman?

— iml8

Frank J writes... The only problem I have with that is that almost no one “on the street” uses the words “vacuous,” or heaven forbid, “cognitive dissonance.”

All this unscientific anger.

All this unscientific abuse.

All these assumptions without checking.

Sadly I'm only too used to people, evolutionists or of other religions, who get angry when their faith is challenged. You feel threatened.

I frequently read articles about biology, the heart, separation of felines from canines, etc. because I find them interesting. I also have read a lot about evolutionary biology in the hope of some hard data. Not much luck.

I notice only one attempt to cite any source. I'll check it out, but they're usually irrelevant.

Have a nice day, angry evolutionists.

Yes yes yes of course whatever you say. And a nice day to you as well.

White Rabbit (Goebel Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Novparl said: I frequently read articles about biology, the heart, separation of felines from canines, etc. because I find them interesting.

The Unity of Science
The amazing thing about science is that it all fits together. When I was in high school, long ago, we were taught biology, chemistry and physics as separate disciplines. High schools and colleges still must chop subjects up into separate fields.
However, physics -- quantum mechanics -- replaced the ad hoc idea of valence in chemistry with shells, derived from Schroedinger's equation. One idea explained the properties of all chemicals.
Then the DNA molecule was analyzed. It's properties derived from physics and chemistry. Which explains evolutionary biology at the molecular level.
The creationist cannot be allowed to rip one piece out of science they don't happen to like. (Not because of Jesus, who never came near the subject: He was trying to get across salvation, as well as tolerance and forgiveness.)
All scientist should come to the defense of science, because science is a coherent web of thought.

It can be whittled down to three points: 1. ID relies on supernatural (or otherwise untestable) causation and thus isn’t science 2. The purpose of ID is to replace science with a specific religious theology (see the Wedge Document) 3. No data in support of ID has been published in a single peer-reviewed scientific research paper In total, these points disqualify ID as valid science, and show that it violates the Establishment Clause and fails the Lemon Test. Some powerful corollaries are that to argue point 3, one must invoke a decades-long global conspiracy against ID, and that, by watering down science at the high school level, ID endangers American scientific competitiveness. We have tons of ammo - I think that sometimes we need to take a moment to explain to the layperson how science works, and the full power of the anti-ID arguments becomes clearer.

— James F

All this unscientific anger. ...people... who get angry when their faith is challenged. You feel threatened.

I frequently read articles about biology... I also have read a lot about evolutionary biology in the hope of some hard data. Not much luck.

One is forced to wonder why fundamentalists, who believe that science is an innately corrupt and unholy enterprise, would even bother trying to justify their foolishness scientifically.

Thomas said: One is forced to wonder why fundamentalists, who believe that science is an innately corrupt and unholy enterprise, would even bother trying to justify their foolishness scientifically.

Thomas said: One is forced to wonder why fundamentalists, who believe that science is an innately corrupt and unholy enterprise, would even bother trying to justify their foolishness scientifically.

To label as “information” the murky doctrine of creationism (now repackaged as “intelligent design”) is ludicrous. The intelligent design movement represents a desperate attempt to accommodate within American schools the religious fundamentalism that is undiminished–even resurgent–in many parts of the country. Clearly, the Christian creation story should be taught in religious education classes, alongside those of the other major faiths. But there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Garden of Eden fable should be given no more credence than the Hindu belief that the world rests on the back of an elephant.

FL said: Furthermore, the ID hypothesis doesn't start with any such religious things, doesn't pre-assume any such religious things, and doesn't pre-require any such religious things. Period. That's why ID is not creationism and Mundy is wrong to conflate them.

Furthermore, the ID hypothesis doesn’t start with any such religious things, doesn’t pre-assume any such religious things, and doesn’t pre-require any such religious things. Period.

— FL

2. The purpose of ID is to replace science with a specific religious theology (see the Wedge Document)

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

FL, seriously, what part of "Christian and theistic convictions" isn't clear? That's theology, not science. Scientists themselves have their own religious (or atheistic philosophies), but science has nothing to do with a religious worldview. And we've already discussed that ID does not equal YEC/OEC, but it's still creationist pseudoscience. My point stands.

They want to replace it with science that’s “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”, that’s true, but still they want to replace things WITH SCIENCE, not with theology.

— FL

I am fascinated at the very concept of "non-materialistic
science". If science is defined as the effort to
comprehend the mechanistic natural laws of the Universe,
then that's like saying "non-science science".

So if science shouldn't be the effort to understand the
nuts and bolts of how the Universe works, then what should
it be? The response of "there's more to the Universe than
that" can only be answered "that may be so, but there's
nothing the sciences can say about it". Non-materialistic
issues fall into the domain of philosophy and theology.

I think what we end up here with is a confusion between the
notions of scientific materialism and philosophical
materialism. The sciences deal with the material
Universe; a scientific materialist like Miller
says there's more to it than that, while a philosophical
materialist like Dawkins says that's all there is to care
about.

But no matter what this "reformed science" is supposed
to be -- and I will say that those advocating it have
been very vague about specifics -- to those who are
receiving the pitch it sounds very much along the lines
of
historical efforts to establish "ideologically correct"
science. I will not mention any specific names because
the ideologies that liked to do this tended to be
monstrous ones, and though I do regard the Darwin-bashers
as peculiar in some ways, I do not claim that they
are monstrous.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

I predict we are about to get another Gish Gallop from FL.

He won’t answer or take responsibility for any of his fallacious claims, but instead, will just keep posting more crap with the smug illusion that he is confounding all the “evilutionists” who post here.

FL said:

2. The purpose of ID is to replace science with a specific religious theology (see the Wedge Document)

Just happened to see this claim right now. As a footnote to the previous post, then, let's do what this particular claim asks readers to do---let's see the Wedge Document.

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

So......we see now that they are NOT claiming to "replace science with a specific religious theology" but instead to replace a specific worldview (the religion of materialism) WITH SCIENCE. They want to replace it with science that's "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", that's true, but still they want to replace things WITH SCIENCE, not with theology.

There's nothing wrong with setting an overall goal of replacing scientific materialism with a science that is consonant with theism. They are NOT calling for teaching theology in science class.

The wedge document makes clear: they want to replace the materialist worldview WITH SCIENCE, even if it's a science that materialists don't like because of their materialist religion.

Nobody's trying to replace the scientific method nor the scientific enterprise with theology, and the Wedge is not claiming any such replacement goal. The Wedge document is very clear about that, and honest evolutionists will want to simply avoid mis-representing or offering falsehoods about the document's claims.

It's the evidence, stupid.

FL said: The ID hypothesis...says absolutely NOTHING about teaching any Christian creation story, nor Garden of Eden, nor Hindu beliefs, nor ANYBODY's religious texts, within American schools. ... Furthermore, the ID hypothesis doesn't start with any such religious things, doesn't pre-assume any such religious things, and doesn't pre-require any such religious things. Period. That's why ID is not creationism and Mundy is wrong to conflate them.

FL said: So......we see now that they are NOT claiming to "replace science with a specific religious theology" but instead to replace a specific worldview (the religion of materialism) WITH SCIENCE. They want to replace it with science that's "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", that's true...

In fairness, I think that it's important for scientists and nonscientists alike to be reminded one thing about ID: Its religious history (the creationist antecedents pointed out so vividly and comically in the Dover trial), the religious beliefs of its principal authors, the religious beliefs of its adherents, the religious beliefs of Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, William Paley, you, or me, have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with its truth claims. This is actually one of the rare instances in which I find myself in agreement with Dembski. Attacking the religious history and motivation of ID is a complete red herring: If ID is scientifically true (assuming for a moment that it ever came up with any scientific hypotheses), it would should make absolutely no difference what the other motives people had for believing it were. Ken Miller believes that the TOE is supportive of, rather than contrary to, his Roman Catholic beliefs, but no one here besides FL would want it thrown out of schools on those grounds. So I feel like it's a terrible and explicit mistake for scientists, Judge Jones, or anyone else to dismiss it, even partly, on that ground. If I were to found a religion claiming that WWII was God’s vengeful judgment on humanity, that would hardly mean that it didn’t happen, or, more importantly, that we shouldn’t learn about it as history, and not religion, in schools. The historical existences of sun religions don’t, after all, preclude scientific study of the sun or discussions of it in physics seminars. So ultimately, I think the problem isn’t that ID has a, as Mundy maintains, a closeted religious agenda; it shouldn’t have to hide its religious agenda. It should simply be required to adhere to the same evidentiary standards as anything else to enter a science curriculum.

Instead, I think, the focus should always remain on the fact that ID has no research program, publishes nothing in science journals, offers no predictions, and has no way to be falsified. As has been discussed in other comments, for ID to make any claims would necessitate alienating one or more of its constituencies, who hold widely varying and mutually exclusive beliefs about the origin and history of the physical world and life. But as far as Dembski’s claims about Christ being a necessary addendum to science, well, I really don’t find anything threatening about that. If the Christian creation story is correct, and if the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ are real, then these things should be able to be verified scientifically (and I will use a broad definition of science that allows history). A principal problem with allowing religious claims to be treated as science, though, is that the religious themselves (mainly Christians, of course, in the case of ID) do the least work in investigating them. It seems that the ones asserting most forcefully that religion and science can be “bridged,” as Dembski has it, are the ones most afraid of (or at minimum the least inclined toward) researching and verifying their own propositions. The related problem is the tendency of religions to view their sacred texts as self-verifying: The Bible is God’s holy word because God told us so with his holy words in the Bible. If religion is to qualify as science, as ID proponents wish, then it must withstand review from without, plain and simple. But a priori exclusion of it in any form from science is simply an error.

FL said: The ID hypothesis--whether it be the cosmological ID hypothesis of Drs. Gonzalez and Richard's excellent book The Privileged Planet, or the 3-point ID hypothesis of Dr. William Dembski's excellent 1999 book Intelligent Design, says absolutely NOTHING about teaching any Christian creation story, nor Garden of Eden, nor Hindu beliefs, nor ANYBODY's religious texts, within American schools. (We've discussed this particular aspect within this forum, so you already know it's true.) Furthermore, the ID hypothesis doesn't start with any such religious things, doesn't pre-assume any such religious things, and doesn't pre-require any such religious things. Period. That's why ID is not creationism and Mundy is wrong to conflate them. The only question now is whether Simon Mundy is merely confused, or confused and plum-ignorant, or confused and plum-ignorant plus one-egg-short-of-a-carton. Those are the only three rational options in this case. The reader is left to choose which one. FL :)

I agree -- having made this same point earlier in this
same thread. Unfortunately the problem is that following
the insight that "it's not science", then the answer to
the question of what it ACTUALLY is comes back as
"conservative religion in disguise". This tends to make
the distinction a bit troublesome to sort out. People who
are clearly hostile to religion don't bother.

White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

a science that is consonant with theism.

FL said: And that's the charitable interpretation, honestly.

FL said:

To label as “information” the murky doctrine of creationism (now repackaged as “intelligent design”) is ludicrous. The intelligent design movement represents a desperate attempt to accommodate within American schools the religious fundamentalism that is undiminished–even resurgent–in many parts of the country. Clearly, the Christian creation story should be taught in religious education classes, alongside those of the other major faiths. But there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Garden of Eden fable should be given no more credence than the Hindu belief that the world rests on the back of an elephant.

Looks like the only "Confusion" here is that of Simon Mundy himself. And that's the charitable interpretation, honestly. The ID hypothesis--whether it be the cosmological ID hypothesis of Drs. Gonzalez and Richard's excellent book The Privileged Planet, or the 3-point ID hypothesis of Dr. William Dembski's excellent 1999 book Intelligent Design, says absolutely NOTHING about teaching any Christian creation story, nor Garden of Eden, nor Hindu beliefs, nor ANYBODY's religious texts, within American schools. (We've discussed this particular aspect within this forum, so you already know it's true.) Furthermore, the ID hypothesis doesn't start with any such religious things, doesn't pre-assume any such religious things, and doesn't pre-require any such religious things. Period. That's why ID is not creationism and Mundy is wrong to conflate them. The only question now is whether Simon Mundy is merely confused, or confused and plum-ignorant, or confused and plum-ignorant plus one-egg-short-of-a-carton. Those are the only three rational options in this case. The reader is left to choose which one. FL :)

(We've discussed this particular aspect within this forum, so you already know it's true.)

You mean you said it so many times that it must be true in your own mind?

yeah.

JPS said: So ultimately, I think the problem isn’t that ID has a, as Mundy maintains, a closeted religious agenda; it shouldn’t have to hide its religious agenda. It should simply be required to adhere to the same evidentiary standards as anything else to enter a science curriculum.

Have a nice day, angry evolutionists.

— Novparl

The ID hypothesis–whether it be the cosmological ID hypothesis of Drs. Gonzalez and Richard’s excellent book The Privileged Planet, or the 3-point ID hypothesis of Dr. William Dembski’s excellent 1999 book Intelligent Design, says absolutely NOTHING about teaching any Christian creation story, nor Garden of Eden, nor Hindu beliefs, nor ANYBODY’s religious texts, within American schools.

— FL

“Hollow shell painted to look like science from the outside”. That sums it up.

— stevaroni

Frank J said:

“Hollow shell painted to look like science from the outside”. That sums it up.

— stevaroni

Unfortunately most nonscientists, and not just fundamentalists, prefer "painted hollow shells" to real science. I'm at my most pessimistic when in a book store I see the ratio of pseudoscience to science books. Even the tiny science section is usually contaminated with pseudoscience like "Darwin's Black Box."

Stuart Weinstein said: Of course disco toot books aren't going to blab about the garden of eating and talking snakes. They'd be dead on arrival. Instead it promotes laughable nonsense wishing it was science.

Just got my first look at the tome today. I can sum up my feelings in one word: BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH AH A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If these retards think they can fool any Federal Judge anywhere in the United States of America with this, then they are even MORE deluded and desperate than I thought they were --- and I already thought they were pretty damn deluded and desperate. Yes, folks, every typical creationist/ID argument you've heard in the past 40 years, is in here. "Cambrian Explosion". "Abrupt Appearence (yes, they were indeed stupid enough to use ***that very phrase***, repeatedly)". "Fossil Gaps". "Created Kinds". "Microevolution and Macroevolution". "Bats have no fossil ancestors". "Flowering plants appear suddenly". "Common structures are the result of common function". "Common structures are just convergence". "Haeckel's drawings show that darwinists are liars". "Mutation and natural selection can't produce new structures". "Peppered moths were faked". "DNA can only change within fixed limits". "Evolution is just an assumption". "Biological information cannot increase". "No new genetic information". "No beneficial mutations". "Goldschmidt's monster". "Behe and the flagellum". "Irreducible complexity". "Evolution is a tautology". "The big bad scientific establishment crushes dissent". Indeed, the entire fossil discussion is straight out of Gish's "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!". The whole Introduction is one big long AiG "were you there?" discussion. The "A New Challenge" section is all about "Intelligent Design Theory", without ever mentioning the name (I expect that Dover had something to do with that, right Paul?). Give me the weekend, and I'll link all of these to their previously published creationist/ID ancestors. While ALL of these are standard ICR/AiG/DI boilerplate, some of them I literally haven't heard in 20 years, so it'll take some digging to find them again in print.

If I owned a bookstore, I’d have a separate and prominently named Pseudoscience section for things like Behe and Trudeau. … or I could just refuse to carry those things.

— Wheels

Mike Elzinga said: I have, only once that I can remember, made a comment about a pseudo-science book being portrayed as a science book by where it was placed in the public library. I got one of those looks that made me suspect that the librarian thought I was another of those kooks she had to deal with on a regular basis. I didn’t press the issue, and I don’t know what happened after that.

386sx said: Lanny Flank offered some brief analysis of Explore Evolution, the successor to Pandas and People:

iml8 said: I have been tempted to press the Loveland library to refile Johnson's DARWIN ON TRIAL from the bioscience section to the theology section. ... But I get along with them well and saw no purpose in making a fuss. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel)

Ravilyn Sanders said: BTW you got The Ancestor's Tale in your library? Guess Sarah Palin is not your mayor. :-)

I have been tempted to press the Loveland library to refile Johnson’s DARWIN ON TRIAL from the bioscience section to the theology section.

— iml8

rossum said:

JPS said: So ultimately, I think the problem isn’t that ID has a, as Mundy maintains, a closeted religious agenda; it shouldn’t have to hide its religious agenda. It should simply be required to adhere to the same evidentiary standards as anything else to enter a science curriculum.

In purely scientiifc terms, and in terms of purely scientific arguments, you are of course correct. However, ID is not a purely scientific enterprise, it is also a political and theological enterprise. The religion-based arguments you talk about are legitimate for use in political or theological discussions. Because ID tries to be science, politics and (disguised) theology, we have to counter it on all those levels if we do not want it to succeed. Arguments that are not legitimate in scientific discussions are allowed in political discussions. "All ID proponents are secret Muslim ferret-leggers who eat boiled babies for breakfast and bite the heads off whippets for amusement." is not a scientific argument but is the kind of thing that can be seen in politics. Since ID is also (mainly?) in the business of politics then that kind of argument is going to be used. rossum

I am, actually, completely in favor of religious people subjecting the claims of their respective faiths to the standards of empiricism: It might get them some exposure to how science works, with the added benefit of exposing a lot of factually absurd ideas.

— JPS

The 'weaver bird' designs, according to an evolved instinct of course.
Does he or she qualify as a designer of things larger? My god! The possibilities are endless, but they are all of them, evoved designers I suppose. What conclusions can one draw from this in relation to an IDiot Designer?
Rob

Robert said: The 'weaver bird' designs, according to an evolved instinct of course. Does he or she qualify as a designer of things larger? My god! The possibilities are endless, but they are all of them, evoved designers I suppose. What conclusions can one draw from this in relation to an IDiot Designer?

JackFrostDidIt!!!111!!!

Mike Elzinga said:

I am, actually, completely in favor of religious people subjecting the claims of their respective faiths to the standards of empiricism: It might get them some exposure to how science works, with the added benefit of exposing a lot of factually absurd ideas.

— JPS

I think we would all like to see this, but it will never happen with the proselytizing leaders of these sects. I don’t know if you were lurking around here when Mark Hausam had two whole threads with something like a thousand comments devoted to one of them. Our current fundamentalist troll, FL, was also making occasional comments on those threads.

The one event that will never happen with them is for them to subject their dogma to any kind of empirical investigation. The word “evidence”, as it is used in science, is absolutely meaningless to them, and they have no neurological responses to that word. It just goes right over their heads and we never hear an answer to our requests for evidence.

What “evidence” appears to mean to them, if it has any meaning at all, is exegesis and hermeneutics. They even employ these in their rare attempts to comment on science material conflicting with their dogma that is present to them.

This revulsion to empiricism is rampant among fundamentalists, and I suspect that fear of burning in their concept of hell is the primary driver of their avoidance of such questions.

While I’ve been lurking for some time now, I seem to have missed that thread. I’d be happy to follow a link.

— JPS

I’d rather suggest that they are inclined to distort, ignore or suppress disconfirming evidence.

But the hell Ken Miller learned about in Catholic (me too) is just as hot. I don’t think that’s all that’s going on.

Frank J said:

iml8 I have been tempted to press the Loveland library to refile Johnson’s DARWIN ON TRIAL from the bioscience section to the theology section.

Careful, that's just what the scammers want you to do, so they can whine "censorship." The charge would be nonsense, of course, the book might even get better exposure in the theology section, but that's not the point. "Censorship" charges are usually fitter memes than the facts that dispute them. A few years ago I read a fairly convincing defense from a fellow "Darwinist" that books that are about science ought to be in the science section, even if all they do is misrepresent science. Many (most?) people think that everything in the science section is either wrong or "just a guess" anyway, so they might as well think that of anti-evolution books too.

Kevin B said: What's needed is a "Creationism" heading within "History and Philosophy of Science". Since ID isn't Creationism it'll need to be put elsewhere.

Would Dembski's books fit under "Recreational Mathematics"?

Paul Burnett said: Unfortunately, as discussed above, in spite of protestations from intelligent design creationism's fellow travelers and other cdesign proponentsists, ID is creationism. Just because a bunch of non-scientists and ex-scientists say "ID is science" doesn't make it so. And when essentially every actual science organization says "ID is not science" there's a pretty good chance ID is not science. There's even a Federal Court decision on this: "We have concluded that intelligent design is not science, and moreover that intelligent design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." - Judge John Jones, Harrisburg, PA, December 20, 2005.

Kevin B said: Intelligent Design is merely part of the vacuous science. Basically, it is "Vacuous Bioinformations", to be placed alongside Vacuous Geology, Vacuous Nuclear Physics, etc, that have been used in the past.

Slightly OT:

WRT beehives and hexagons, if you make a bunch of paper tubes, put them upright in a box and squeeze the sides of the box (or just tie a string lasso around them and squeeze), what shape is each paper tube forced into? Anyone want to guess? It's not that bees are somehow predisposed to create hexagons instead of squares or triangles, it's that they're predisposed to cram lots of cells into the available space, and it's the cramming that makes the hexagons.

Bill Gascoyne said: WRT beehives and hexagons, if you make a bunch of paper tubes, put them upright in a box and squeeze the sides of the box (or just tie a string lasso around them and squeeze), what shape is each paper tube forced into?

Bill Gascoyne said: Slightly OT: ...It's not that bees are somehow predisposed to create hexagons instead of squares or triangles, it's that they're predisposed to cram lots of cells into the available space, and it's the cramming that makes the hexagons.

Consider also the "Principle of Least Action", which gives the superficial appearance as if bodies under the influence of Newton's laws of motion acted purposefully to minimize the quantity "action".

Or how electrons can solve Schrodinger's equation. Electrons are really smart, aren't they?

Kevin B said: Let us distinguish between "Creationism", "Creation Science" and "Intellegent Design", which are not precisely definable, but are part of a set of overlapping issues. In its purest form, (Christian) Creationism is merely a restatement of the Creed ("I believe in One God, ... Maker of all things, visible and invisible....) Subscribers to Theist Evolution can go along with this quite happily, since it does not preclude the idea that God works in ways that are indistinguishable from "pure chance", as observed by "science". (Indeed, there is explicit instruction in the Gospels against attempts to prove the existence of God by observation of the physical world.) Creation Science effectively tries to rewrite the Creed as "I can prove that there is One God...." by deploying unsound arguments based on purported "scientific" observations. The theology is flawed, and the science is vacuous. Intelligent Design is merely part of the vacuous science. Basically, it is "Vacuous Bioinformations", to be placed alongside Vacuous Geology, Vacuous Nuclear Physics, etc, that have been used in the past.

James F said: This has been discussed elsewhere, but it's important to group intelligent design, YEC, and OEC under "creationist pseudoscience." The three beliefs are not identical, but all invoke supernatural causation (contrast this to theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, where natural laws and processes are accepted as the means of creation). YEC and OEC are explicitly based on specific interpretations of Genesis, while for ID the identity of the designer is stated behind the scenes (see the Wedge Document).

Or how electrons can solve Schrodinger’s equation. Electrons are really smart, aren’t they?

— Tom S

Kevin B said: Countering this by just saying that ID *is* Creationism is not enough. You have to deal with the substance (such as it is) of the ID argument itself. And basically, it boils down to the fact that none of the published ID work can withstand critical scrutiny by competent practisioners in the subject areas concerned. ID is merely bad science.

Kevin B said: Let us distinguish between "Creationism", "Creation Science" and "Intellegent Design", which are not precisely definable, but are part of a set of overlapping issues. In its purest form, (Christian) Creationism is merely a restatement of the Creed ("I believe in One God, ... Maker of all things, visible and invisible....) Subscribers to Theist Evolution can go along with this quite happily, since it does not preclude the idea that God works in ways that are indistinguishable from "pure chance", as observed by "science". (Indeed, there is explicit instruction in the Gospels against attempts to prove the existence of God by observation of the physical world.) Creation Science effectively tries to rewrite the Creed as "I can prove that there is One God...." by deploying unsound arguments based on purported "scientific" observations. The theology is flawed, and the science is vacuous. Intelligent Design is merely part of the vacuous science. Basically, it is "Vacuous Bioinformations", to be placed alongside Vacuous Geology, Vacuous Nuclear Physics, etc, that have been used in the past.

D. P. Robin said: Anyway, this is how I'd parse this group.

Mike Elzinga said:

Or how electrons can solve Schrodinger’s equation. Electrons are really smart, aren’t they?

— Tom S

Indeed. How long did it take humans to learn how to tunnel? Electrons were born with the ability. :-)

D. P. Robin said: "Intelligent Design" is really the last gasp for Creationism--it is creationism so watered-down and shorn of meaningful content that many religious creationists ignore it as no longer being a position that has meaning for them.

D. P. Robin said: "Intelligent Design" is really the last gasp for Creationism--it is creationism so watered-down and shorn of meaningful content that many religious creationists ignore it as no longer being a position that has meaning for them.

*edit to add*
But then, I am an optimist.

Wheels said: I'd prefer to think that the distinct "teach the controversy" effort is the very last gasp; it's so content-free it doesn't even need to mention Intelligent Design, it skips the trouble of rephrasing "scientific creationism" into a different set of words, and hopefully there is nothing even more pathetic beyond that to which they can turn.

What I want to know is how electrons know when they’re supposed to be particles and when they’re supposed to be waves.

— Bill Gascoyne

I’d prefer to think that the distinct “teach the controversy” effort is the very last gasp; it’s so content-free it doesn’t even need to mention Intelligent Design...

— Wheels

Frank J said: It would be nice if most people read and understood the excellent article by Barbara Forrest cited above...

Bill Gascoyne said: (Hint: Electrons are neither particles nor waves; they're electrons. Particle-like and wave-like are our explanations or analogies to describe how they always behave.)

That’s why I keep citing it, and providing the link…particularly when I’m being a troll on right-wing fundagelical blogs.

— Paul Burnett

Frank J said: By all means keep doing it, but don't expect much, especially where the most of the few who will bother to read it, will do so only to quote mine, and refine their bait-and-switch tactics.

iml8 said: I have considered the possibility of infiltrating some Darwin-basher sites and pretending to be a hardcore Biblical creationist who hates ID because it disses God. (Two can play at "wedge strategies ... it would certainly make the closet creationists among the ID crowd uncomfortable.) But that would be a considerable and eventually distasteful level of work for such an idle amusement.

Saddlebred said: They have a tendency to ban people who present views similar to that over at UD (even the sincere ones).

FL said: So......we see now that they are NOT claiming to "replace science with a specific religious theology" but instead to replace a specific worldview (the religion of materialism) WITH SCIENCE. They want to replace it with science that's "consonant with Christian and theistic convictions", that's true, but still they want to replace things WITH SCIENCE, not with theology.

David Fickett-Wilbar said: 1. What happens ...

David Fickett-Wilbar said: 2. In what way is current science not theistically-compatible? That there are so many scientists who are theists seems to belie a contradiction between science and theism. (snip)

fnxtr said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: 2. In what way is current science not theistically-compatible? That there are so many scientists who are theists seems to belie a contradiction between science and theism. (snip)

We have already seen that FL has decided these scientists are not True Christians (TM).

1. What happens if this theistically-compatible science discovers something that isn’t theistically-compatible? Is it ignored?

— David Fickett-Wilbar

David Fickett-Wilbar said: What happens if this theistically-compatible science discovers something that isn't theistically-compatible? Is it ignored?

eric said: Bill, You may want to pick up Feynman's book "QED." According to him (at least the way I read it, I could easily be wrong), its all particles - no ifs, ands, or buts. What we observe as wave-like behavior is explained/predicted by quantum electrodynamic theory.

Bill Gascoyne said: (Hint: Electrons are neither particles nor waves; they're electrons. Particle-like and wave-like are our explanations or analogies to describe how they always behave.)