Intelligent Design in Dover and Kansas
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
Darwin’s beer [flickrwegian / Flickr]
Back in August, we did a show on intelligent design with Ken Miller. The idea was to try to understand the very slippery meaning of the term — to figure out just what it is and what it isn’t — and at the same time to make it clear that you can believe fervently in evolution and God at the same time. Since that show, several interesting things have happened on the roiling political front of I.D., and it seems like a good time to check in on what’s going on.
Dover, PA, is in the middle of a trial over whether I.D. should be discussed in ninth-grade biology. And to complicate matters, earlier this month, only days after closing testimony in the trial, Dover residents voted out the eight school board members up for re-election in favor of candidates who ran against mentioning I.D. in science classrooms.
Funnily enough, on the very same day that Dover residents ousted their pro-I.D. school board, the Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 in favor of new k-12 science standards that the New York Times calls “the most far-reaching in the nation in challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution in the classroom.”
To make matters more interesting, columnist George Will — referring specifically to the Dover school board election — wrote:
The conservative coalition, which is coming unglued for many reasons, will rapidly disintegrate if limited-government conservatives become convinced that social conservatives are unwilling to concentrate their character-building and soul-saving energies on the private institutions that mediate between individuals and government, and instead try to conscript government into sectarian crusades.
George Will, Washington Post columnist
So: among others, we’re inviting Ken Miller — freshly back from testifying in the Dover trial — to walk us through the Dover case and its effect on the community. The idea is to look closely at Dover and Kansas and then try to understand the bigger political story. What would you like to ask?
Kenneth Miller
-
Professor of Biology at Brown University.
Author of Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution and a biology textbook called Biology.
David Napierskie
- Outgoing member of the Dover school board.
Steve Abrams
- Member of the Kansas State Board of Education. Veterinarian.
Dorothy Rabinowitz
-
Author, Dorothy Rabinowitz’s Media Log
Editorial Board Member, The Wall Street Journal
- Extra-Credit Reading
-
The Dover statement that is read out in 9th grade biology classes.
The new k-12 Kansas standards that, according to the New York Times, redefine science so that it’s not “explicitly limited to natural explanations.”
John Cole, Balloon Juice Attention Kansas High School Students
November 21st, 2005 at 4:41 pm
What exactly does ‘intelligent design’ predict? How do its proponents intend to test its viability? And why (in the country that last century led the explosive growth of science!) must we pretend that this new attempt to explain exisitence via only the supernatural is in any way credible?
November 21st, 2005 at 5:33 pm
One of our Salt Lake City brewers has it’s own evolution ale.
November 21st, 2005 at 5:34 pm
html was nuked above…
http://www.wasatchbeers.com/evopage.html
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:38 pm
The usual science cycle of “observe - measure - predict” (shorthanded of course) certainly doesn’t apply to these folks. They seem to defy the role of evolution in the history of life on earth. It didn’t work then, but they have to concede that all the components are in place now. If they have some refutation of spontaneous mutation and refutation of survival of the fittest, it’ll be a new universe. As a paleontologist once related to me, “We all know how we got our own particular fafvorite breed of dog. We start with some dog, and isolate them as they breed, so we can get the smaller one, or the fuzzier one, or the faster one, or the blacker one by these unnatural selections. All Darwin said was they the world does this through natural means, too.”
Wonder how they’ll explain the advantageous (to the virus anyway) mutation of Avian Flu and it’s natural selection as a human pathogen.
And don’t forget, Pat Robertson told the prople of Dover that they shouldn’t complain about the next natural disaster - because of what they did he expects God will likely turn his back on them and let them all perish. Hmmmm… would bird flu qualify? I wish no one, certainly not the people of Dover any harm, but how ironic if Robertson’s prediction comes true at the hands of an advantageous (for the virus) genetic variation and biologically successful (again for the virus) natural selection.
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:11 pm
Maybe the science education community is missing a teachable moment here. If “Intelligent Design” is to be presented as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, then it must itself be a theory, namely, the Theory of Intelligent Design. So here is the assignment:
“Compare and contrast the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the Theory of Intelligent Design. What predictions does each theory make? Which predictions have been born out by observations in the natural world?”
If Intelligent Design is not a theory, then what is it, and why should it be included in the scientific curriculum?
November 22nd, 2005 at 6:25 pm
[...] volved in that little imbroglio with another group with whom I am associated), is having a big special on Intelligent Design. I was asked to be on the show, but I w [...]
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Science is not only about predictions. Nostradamus made some amazing predictions too…
Theory of evolution is in fact pretty bad wrt predictions, other then in controlled experiments with fruit flies, etc. There are too many variables in real world.
And if we are so “scientific” and “evolution-aware”, why don’t we do something about MDR (multiple drug resistent) bacteria?
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Is there a flexible, negotiable definition of Life that has some modicum of consensus? Adding, I view consensus not as agreement, but instead as the absence of rancor, sabatoge, and hyperbolic rhetoric intended to create a wedge issues.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 pm
What is the general opinion of ID proponents of Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability; i.e. the notion that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific rigorous if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Wow, defining “Life” (capital L) moves us from just intelligent design into the pro-life arena, so I’m not sure you’re going to find any lack of rancor there.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:13 pm
The fundamental flaw of Intelligent Design is not that it relies on God to explain the origins of life, but rather that it draws a positive conclusion based on a negative premise. To sum up Intelligent Design, there are some things that evolution cannot explain, therefore they must have been created by a higher power. That’s not a logically denfensible position. All that proves is that there are holes in evolutionary theory. Assuming the existence of God based on this premise is a logical “leap of faith” - no pun intended.
Moreover, I don’t see what is the big deal. While no amount of science can prove the existence of a higher creator (as IDers suggest), no amount of science can disprove the existence of one either. That’s the essence of faith and belief.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:23 pm
Why is intelligent design becoming a big deal NOW? That’s what I want to know. It’s a huge deal now, but only in the US. What else is behind this movement? It’s clearly about more than what’s going on in classrooms. Is this about politics and money as well?
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:25 pm
Would a proponent of ID go to a doctor who had diplomas on their wall from ID-centric institutions? Would faith healing be an acceptable medical practice under ID theory?
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:38 pm
I never blog. Other people blog for me. it’s all about who owns the means of production, I guess…
I just wanted to say, man, that was a weird, awkward moment. O_o
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:39 pm
ID will live on in ALL schools as a very interesting debate because of Kansas and Dover! It just won’t be in science classrooms, but in philosophy, civics, etc. This is not science - they keep saying that it is based on hypotheses, but I hear no hypothesis from any supporter! Science will always question itself, and if ID had a good, testable hypothesis, science curriculum would welcome it! But the key words are “testable hypotheses, ” and I’m still waiting to hear one.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:39 pm
Kansas–leading the descent down the ladder that sentience hath wrought. It’s just another example of human fear manifesting itself in a futile attempt to secure the flux of reality and making safe what Vonnegut called, “A universe composed of one trillionth part matter to one decillion parts black velvet futility.” Of course, absolute rigid “belief” in Darwin’s speculations is just as foolish: a true scientific outlook humbly says “I don’t know!” as often as it has to, while ceaselessly looking for answers. The flying spaghetti monster’s posse may well kick your posse’s tush: better be on the side that’s winning, just in case. Now where did I leave that goat I was gonna burn… Hmmm…
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:39 pm
On the PBS NOW! forum over the past few weeks I have been debating two issues in particular that I see as relevant, ID as in the Dover/KS case, and the BYU Jones argument that the WTC were destroyed by a explosives as in a controlled demolition.
In the BYU Jones case, the debate wasn’t muddied with known or unknown information as much as it was based on the credentials of Prof Jones. Prof Jones is a physic professor at BYU so when he finds something hard to believe, that means the physics are impossible. Yet, his arguments are blatently flawed in their application of physics. I was unable to read any paragraph without finding his statements unproven or completely false.
However, my point is that there are so many people who just can’t see the flaws in Jones’s arguments and, without reading the official report, use his “report” as “proof” of a grand conspiracy. Prof Jones writing shows no scientific discipline at all.
So when it comes to something like evolution and the origins of the universe, where the ideas are much more abstract then the cause of the WTC collaps, a failure to understand the fundamentals of scientific inquiry just dooms any ability to make an argument.
To be clear, people seem not to understand science well enough to understand that the very reproducible and rather well understood nature of steel and concrete being weakened by fire and heat, thinking that the only possible way they can fail is by explosives. Yet anyone with a fireplace or woodstove needs to be extremely aware of the damage heat can do to steel, concrete, and brick. The failure to connect the failure of a building in a fire and the failure of a wood stove and chiminey says something discouraging about their science education.
We are constantly reminded that the flu evolves by the need for a shot every year and the new colds and flus we get each year, yet without the ability to connect that process to the whole of nature and the span of billions of years, the whole of evolution can’t be fathomed, any more than fire causing the destruction of the WTC.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:42 pm
Clear observation by Rabinowitz. Name three proponents of ID who are not an devout Christian. Ok, name one.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:42 pm
The reason for ID / Creationism is political.
It has little to do with religion.
It is a reflection that the right has co-opted religious fundamentialsm for political purposes.
Science gets in the way of profit.
And that is all it about. Nothing more, nothing less.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:49 pm
Chris .. its the mythology that Corporatism is not in control of everything, including religion today.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:51 pm
there is not two sides to science.
That is the honest truth.
You need another hour in this issue.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Yeah, it felt like they barely scratched the surface, doesn’t it. Fun just the same, though.
November 22nd, 2005 at 8:55 pm
Perhaps, ID could fit into the curriculum for a Department of Metaphysics.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:40 pm
People who hold on to fundamentalist beliefs or literal interpretations of religion (for understandable reasons) apparently feel threatened (and understandably) by the march of science. Evolution hit a deep nerve. But many of us know that scientific explanations of natural phenomena do not have to be rejected as taking away from the mystery. Au contraire.
Scientists should not shy away from the moment because they do not want to dignify ID. For one, that so many question evolution points to a deficit in science education. Someone above said that his is a teaching moment. I agree. We should keep at this conversation.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Did Dorothy Rabinowitz write about this? Could we have a link?
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:54 pm
What if science eventually finds a way to calibrate a device and/or method that proves that genuine unbending focussed faith, being an exertion of energy upon an entropic system, actually effects change on that system, as with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle? I think Julian May has sort of discussed this in her Galactic Milieu series. What if there isn’t a true dichotomy: what if scientific observation and mystical speculation are part of a whole? What if a god or a covey of brilliantly advanced Others really are sitting around viewing our adorable miniscule ponderings and doing shots of ichor, betting on fledgling races to cross a finish line first? Hey, this feels good–so sue me.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Please forgive my sounding confrontational but I want to keep it simple.
If people want to contest or criticise a scientific theory, such as Darwinian Evolution let it be done the way all science argument is done: in the scientific journals by scientists using the methods of science. We would never allow the mathematics of number theory to be challenged by students of the Caballa in any other place than the journals of mathematics, certainly not in public high schools. The separation of church and state is a principle of the highest form of civilization. Those governments which do not keep religion out of their functioning are backwards and don’t deserve to be called democracies. No religion which believes in a god or gods and the notion that the cosmos was created by a god would allow a non-believer to stand up in one of their churces or schools and challenge their ideas.
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:41 am
1) Nikos said it best when he said….”What exactly does ‘intelligent design’ predict? How do its proponents intend to test its viability?”
In the end, theories of ID have to be observed and proven. If not. If all this ID talk is just a covert agenda to subvert Darwinism and the definition of of science, well, then it’s just pure deception and politics. Sooner or later we’ll have to get back to work; original purpose of science which is to study the observable mechanisms of nature.
I found it humors how Steve Abrams kept repeating over and over the word, “empirical.” Similar to how the Bush administration used to repeat WMD over and over. Just because you repeat it and proclaim that you represent “empirical processes and evidence” doesn’t make it true. Why doesn’t Dr. Abrams just click his heals together? Maybe he can just wish science away. And maybe he thinks that if he repeats his wishful thinking over and over that he can some how pull the wool over our eyes (this is not Fox News).
I also agree with boggledown. ID/creationism is about politics. But it’s also deeper than that. It’s a push to keep people in the dark. If people are ignorant and afraid of “monsters” (superstitions and supernatural). Then it’s much easier for those in power to manipulate. Just the way it’s always been done throughout history.
How do you sum up ID? A political trojan horse.
Machiavelli and Goebbels would be proud.
Note to ID proponents: Darwinism is not meant to explain everything. It’s not meant to explain meaning of life. It’s never complete and may never be complete. But so what? It’s a scientific processes of the observable within nature. If you want some type of academic class that explains meaning and abstractions that’s what religion, poetry and philosophy is for.
Example. If I’m studying a brick. Don’t tell me that the brick *could be alive.* Instead of me just taking your word for it let me use scientific method to find out. That’s what the process of science is about. Not wishful thinking.
[Gizmo checks his calendar just to make sure that it's not 1925. Whew! Thank God! :)]
November 23rd, 2005 at 6:29 am
I don’t really get why it would be so terrible to include God into science. For instance when religious values were incorporated into the practice of medicine it means that patients are treated as human beings instead of as “diseases”. It has to do (in that example) with seeing people not merely as biological mechanisms but as humans with dignity and this has a very positive effect on medicine and indeed on their physical heath because when people are treated with dignity they recover better.
So including ideas into science like mystery, worth, beauty, dignity, meaning, and yes design, could likewise lead to some deepening of how we understand our world. It seems that people are setting up this paranoid straw-man where religious belief is this superstitious thing divorced from reality. This is unfortunate because it sets up a dichotomy where one has to choose to either be a right-wing fundie or a modernist atheist. I think both extremes sound pretty unappealing.
It was asked over and over “What would be an example of a non-natural explanation?” One obvious example would be the placebo effect. A person is sick and through a placebo suddenly they are not. So we have basically mind effecting biology. That is part of our reality, and deserves to be studied.
Yes this is a religious question. And there is paranoia on both sides. But I really don’t see why it would be so hard to incorporate religious concepts into the natural sciences in the same way as they have been incorporated into the social sciences and the practice of medicine and so on, or how they are being incorported into physics. Seems to me that it has made them all richer.
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:38 am
[...] lobal
London
November 23, 2005
Radio Open Source have just covered ID in the frame of the voting-out of t [...]
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:00 pm
>>>So including ideas into science like mystery, worth, beauty, dignity, meaning, and yes design, could likewise lead to some deepening of how we understand our world.>>>
Mystery, worth, beauty, meaning and wonder of design is not exclusive to religious types. You CAN be a scientist and CHOOSE to view the items of individuals you are studying. But that’s YOUR CHOICE. Look in the Bible and see what it says about CHOICE and FREEWILL! So those decisions are not stripped from YOU.
Just like a photographer that goes to the Grand Canyon and takes a picture of a rock formation it’s his CHOICE to view the rock as a beautiful, mysterious, artistic image at the same time NOT mentioning chemical bonds, or chemistry or physics.
>>>This is unfortunate because it sets up a dichotomy where one has to choose to either be a right-wing fundie or a modernist atheist. I think both extremes sound pretty unappealing.>>>
The dichotomy is in your head. It’s still YOUR CHOICE. Just because someone says that ID is real doesn’t mean you should take their word for it. Do you own research.
>>placebo effect
The placebo is NOT non-natural. It IS natural. Kenneth Miller’s was talking about SUPERNATURAL. Now, you’re not going to tell me that placebo effect is SUPERNATURAL are you? What will you call it when there are biological, chemical and psychological evidence on why the placebo works. Once the mystery is understood. There’s nothing SUPER about it.
I mean, are these ID folks saying, “If you can’t explain it, just call it ID.” Then, when one IS able to understand and explain it, what then? Stop calling it ID? How convenient.
Hmmmm, interesting. So, when the nomads thought the Sun was a god. They called it God. But once we figured out that it’s just a ball of fire, hydrogen, sulfer, etc….it turned out to be just that a ball of fire. What happen to that ID theory it was a god?
Understanding does wonders. Not the other way around.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:03 pm
>>> items of individuals you are studying
Just to clarify…
EDIT: Should read, “items AND individuals you are studying.” Also add “environment and universe.”
November 23rd, 2005 at 3:37 pm
I just listened to the show on the podcast–2nd best show on the topic that I’ve heard! (the first being the previous show)
while listening to Steven Abrams, did anyone else start wondering if we will see a “scientific” journal down the road that paid for and staffed by ID-folk, just to publish ID papers–as an end run around the peer review system?
November 23rd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
sharktacos: When we talk about the placebo effect or the mind body connection, it is a scientific concept. Practically, placebos are an important part of scientific testing of drugs for instance.
In the example of a doctor as scientist, he is free to incorporate religious values into his practice however as a scientist- clinician, treating a patient, when there is a conflict between the two, the science must prevail or he may lose his patient.
Is it possible that many have come through their school years not knowing what science is and how we depend on and consequently should respect science in it’s quest for truth about the natural world?
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:38 pm
ID doubters:
“A man a plan a canal, Panama”
Do you really think something that freakily coincidental can exist without His intervention?
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:51 pm
The key underlying assumption of intelligent design is suggested by the doctrine of divine intervention, as expressed by the philosopher Baruch Spinosa. This doctrine holds that God most clearly displays His power by extraordinary events. While God is inactive, nature “works in her accustomed order� (by necessity), but God can act to bring about extraordinary events by suspending natural causes: rain falls that otherwise wouldn’t have fallen, fatal disease is cured, etc. That is, divine intervention, not chance, breaks the strict necessity of natural law. This view of things underlies belief in the efficacy of prayer and the reality of miracles.
Many have recognized that intelligent design seeks to masquerade as science by dropping traditional religious terminology. Instead of God, we have a designer. But the underlying concept of intervention clearly remains.
The best answer to such intervention was indicated by another philosopher, David Hume. It’s more likely that we’re deceived, or suffer a failure of understanding, than that the laws of nature are temporarily suspended. This isn’t hard to understand at a magic show. In the context of the present discussion, it’s more likely that science has failed to adequately explain to us, or that we have failed to understand its explanation of, certain facts of nature, than that preternatural intervention occurred. But the fact that at some point we have to rely upon a belief that one thing is “more likely� than another shows the difficulty of the matter.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:09 am
Gizmo,
Your knee jerk response demonstrates my point of how people place the other side into these extreme strawmen characterizations instead of actually having an intelligent discussion. Sad. When you see everyone who is not like you a foe to be feared and ridiculed you become just like the fundamentalists - and thus become what you hate.
November 24th, 2005 at 12:11 am
Potter,
“sharktacos: When we talk about the placebo effect or the mind body connection, it is a scientific concept. Practically, placebos are an important part of scientific testing of drugs for instance.”
Exactly. And the placebo effect, together with advances in the understanding of the immune system, and a shift from Newtonian lawfulness to Heisenberg’s uncertainly principle have changed the way that people look at the possibility of healing. Consequently some scientists are beginning - through science - to jettison the materialistic world view as reductionist.
“In the example of a doctor as scientist, he is free to incorporate religious values into his practice however as a scientist- clinician, treating a patient, when there is a conflict between the two, the science must prevail or he may lose his patient”
What I am referring to is a lot more than merely “bringing your values into the work place” For example in treating premature infants it has been found that they do not only need to have their vitals monitored (which they certainly do or else thy may have an apneac episode and die) but also they need to be held and stroked and talked to…in a word… loved. And that this has a direct impact on their chances of survival and even increases their physical development. So we have here an example of how incorporating the insights of one discipline (religious values and a concept of human dignity) have a direct impact on the health of patients and thus enrich our practice of medicine.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Come on Shark Taco, you can’t believe that Steve Abrams was being honest. He was side-stepping the questions and kept repeating the same rhetoric over and over…
He’s a veterinarian playing the role of the politician. It was clear that he was trying NOT to mention religion when it is clear that his true intentions. But of course he can’t say that. And I doubt it he trying to push Buddhism or Islam.
Let me ask you a question about “jettison the materialistic world” and “possibility of healing” through other means. Can it be examined and understood? Yes, no maybe? Is the immune system responsible? Is it “God.” Is it chemical reactions released in the brain? Is it “magic.” What?
Or should we not study it and just let it be?
November 24th, 2005 at 2:45 am
Gizmo,
“you can’t believe that Steve Abrams was being honest.”
I agree that he seemed to be holding back and not putting all his cards on the table.
“Let me ask you a question about “jettison the materialistic worldâ€? and “possibility of healingâ€? through other means. Can it be examined and understood?”
Yes it can. Otherwise there is not much point.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:46 am
Manning,
“The key underlying assumption of intelligent design is suggested by the doctrine of divine intervention”
I think this is a pretty huge mischaracterization of ID. ID is not about “god did it” deus ex machina explanations. Quite the opposite, it is about incorporating a way of exploring our world that allows us to discover things beyond the material.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:48 am
If you are able to understand *it* by scientific means, doesn’t that lose a bit of that “wonder?”
November 24th, 2005 at 3:01 am
Lets be clear. ID is term that is being used by the political religious right. All fundamentalist Christians may NOT believe in the ID concept, per se. But it’s clear the politicians are trying to appease their base as well as the scientific community.
ID is not about a practice of mysticism or homeopathic, acupuncture or other alternative methods in science. If that was the case it would have come from a yogi, mystic or chinese acupuncturists. It’s clear it’s coming from the Christian base. Not Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism.
ID is about trying to infer “god did it” because it’s being USED as a political tool for that exact purpose. That’s why most scientist are balking at it. It’s political.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:20 am
Gizmo,
“If you are able to understand *it* by scientific means, doesn’t that lose a bit of that ‘wonder?’”
I think quantum physics and chaos theory actually enhance a sense of wonder. So no, not necessarily. Only when science is reductionistic does it decrease wonder.
“ID is term that is being used by the political religious right”
So how about the religious left joins in and brings some intelligence and sophistication to the table? Right now it is the Religious Right vs. atheistic scientists. You know who will lose that one.
“It’s clear it’s coming from the Christian base. Not Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism.”
Actually from a report I heard on NPR, Muslims are also embracing ID, as do I as a liberal Christian.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:50 am
>>>Religious Right vs. atheistic scientists. You know who will lose that one.
I’ll tell you. The extreme religious right will continue to pray and stay in the church — unchanging and narrowminded. And the atheistic scientists will get back to work and actually contribute to the scientific community, medicine, commerce and technology. That’s called progress.
That’s why I was pointing out that it doesn’t matter if you evoke the term “ID” or “god did it.” it doesn’t matter. One can still get back to work and actually discover new things within the realm of the observable. That’s science.
If you think that ID is the study of the unseen. Then that’s not science. Is theology or mysticism. Because sooner or latter you’ll have to PROVE IT, not just saying ID over and over again and claiming that “science” journals support it.
If you are suggesting that the atheistic right are missing out on that “unseen” force. Were plastics, polymers and biological discoveries achieved by “praying” or by saying, “god did it?” No, they found the answer by diligent study and research. In fact, it was most likely a rejection of the status quo during the middle ages wherein the Church was overbearing.
If you think that ID exist. Ok, fine. Prove it. I’m open to new ideas. But don’t just say it without proof and then say it CAN be explained by scientic study. That proves nothing about the existence of ID. We may never *know* that.
>>>Actually from a report I heard on NPR, Muslims are also embracing ID, as do I as a liberal Christian.
I can understand that. Because it’s about a monotheistic God — centralized. But my statement was about where the POLITICAL term came from; agenda.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:10 am
>>>I think quantum physics and chaos theory actually enhance a sense of wonder. So no, not necessarily. Only when science is reductionistic does it decrease wonder.
I think the reductionistic aspect is where a scientist becomes like the diligent accountant or typist or some other monotony task master. Boring! Sure, they help finding info about statistics and routine discoveries. Heck, historians can become like that too. Any field, really. But not everyone is like that. You’ll find that in religious zealotry too.
The “wonder” part is the drive for knowledge. But this says nothing about an intelligent designer. That’s the catch. The ID keeps coming up trying to to seem like it’s talking about a designer, but uses “unknown” or “unseen” as it’s precursor for its inclusion. But once this wonderous “unknown” is found out it ceases to be that mysterious “god did it” we keep hearing about.
Science is not meant to answer these questions. It will never answer the questions of *why.* That’s why they call it science and not religion.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:50 am
“It will never answer the questions of *why.*”
I agree. But it can answer the questions of how. If there are spiritual aspects of reality then exploring them can only enrich how we understand our world.
“my statement was about where the POLITICAL term came from; agenda.”
I can see that this may be right. And while I am sympathetic to the idea of ID I am not sympathetic to the methods of political manipulation. Also in my memory High School was the most boneheaded version of science I have ever heard, so I’m not so interested in what happens in the public school system here, but much more what actual scientists can discover.
As I said, there has been a lot of incorporation of the spiritual and of values and meaning into medical and mental health fields and it has greatly improved patient health. For example with the preemie example again: It may be true that anyone could hold the preemie and it would have a beneficial effect on their health. Interesting is that when they are held in a “loving way” that this is what does the most good (as opposed to mere handling to do tasks like taking temperature etc) and that you could not replicate this healing touch with a “warm robot arm”.
Even more revealing is that no one, even it is “just your job” is able to hold a preemie and not feel empathy and love for that little cute helpless baby in your arms. It is simply how we are made. That is how we as humans are hardwired to respond. Did this get drilled into us through years of evolution? Sure why not. But the clear fact remains that this physical need a baby has for love and our almost instinctual response of feeling love is a very core part of who we are. I would also propose that a baby (as any child can) picks up on not just your touch but on your mood or emotional state. They feel the love you feel for them and it effects them.
If that is an example of how concepts of “meaning” and “love” and the like can impact and improve medicine, I would be very interested as to how it could enrich our understanding of the universe as well.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:04 am
>>>I agree. But it (science) can answer the questions of how.
Yep.
>>>Did this get drilled into us through years of evolution? Sure why not. But the clear fact remains that this physical need a baby has for love and our almost instinctual response of feeling love is a very core part of who we are. I would also propose that a baby (as any child can) picks up on not just your touch but on your mood or emotional state. They feel the love you feel for them and it effects them.
If that is an example of how concepts of “meaning� and “love� and the like can impact and improve medicine, I would be very interested as to how it could enrich our understanding of the universe as well. >>>
Be careful. You might just find out *how* “love” works in our psyche. Congratulations. You just reduced *it* to a series of chemical reactions and processes. Scary isn’t it?
November 24th, 2005 at 11:08 am
Just listened to the show.
Did we get anywhere?
Abrams just didn’t make a compelling or even comprehensible case.
Rabinowitz almost got somewhere with the withering of religious values.
Is this the big news?
The educational system isn’t the keeper of religious beliefs?
So far the only glimmer of hope is that some judge has the patience to sit through all the rhetoric.
But no good deed goes unpunished.
Thus spake Pathos.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
“Be careful. You might just find out *how* “loveâ€? works in our psyche. Congratulations. You just reduced *it* to a series of chemical reactions and processes. Scary isn’t it? ;)”
I see the smiley face. But this is really a big part of my point - explaining love by reducing it to mere chemical reactions is an extremely lame explanation that is reductionist. It explains only one rather trivial part of picture and declares that this is the whole picture. This reveals a huge lack in the vocabulary of science to adequately explain our world. So I say we need to enlarge our vocabulary.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
>>>I see the smiley face. But this is really a big part of my point - explaining love by reducing it to mere chemical reactions is an extremely lame explanation that is reductionist. It explains only one rather trivial part of picture and declares that this is the whole picture. This reveals a huge lack in the vocabulary of science to adequately explain our world. So I say we need to enlarge our vocabulary.>>>
Yes, I’m aware of the importance of human interactions, body language, memories, experiences, smells, touch, and all the biochemistry and psychology of language too. But I just wanted to make sure you were aware that you were reducing seemingly “wondrous” experiences down to simple processes too (individuals, processes that is). I didn’t mean to discard that there are other pieces to the picture. Those are not discounted. I just didn’t mention them because I was trying to make a point.
If you want to we could go into other areas. But I didn’t want to write a book here?
>>> lame
By the way, the lameness scientific processes when reduced will always be kind of “lame.” It pin points specific methods and processes of the bigger picture. But that’s the way it will always be. But it’s also true that we could at anytime step back and admire the “wonders” big picture. But that’s where it ends. You’ll still have to get back to work sooner or later.
A person could enjoy ridding roller coasters. And a scientistic could study the reasons that person enjoys ridding roller coasters by pulling out his slide rule (joke) and observing chemical and physiological changes in the person. Kinda lame, isn’t it? Sure, but that’s just the way science it. One could put the slide-rule down and get on the roller coster and just “enjoy the ride” as well (the bigger picture — the wondrous part).
There’s a time to study the processes of life. And there’s also a time to experience life. Neither negates the existence of the other — individual processes vs the whole experience). It’s just when someone evokes ID like it’s supposed to just explain it all is when I have a problem; especially when used for political reasons.
There will always be people that choose to live in the world of scientific reductionism (laboratory). Just like there will always be people that choose to be religious fundamentalist (church). That shouldn’t limit you own choices.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
“It’s just when someone evokes ID like it’s supposed to just explain it all is when I have a problem; especially when used for political reasons.”
Nice post. What do you think about the idea that there is some sort of opperative organizing life principle in nature in addition to the evolutionary process?
November 24th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Shark Taco: “For example in treating premature infants it has been found that they do not only need to have their vitals monitored (which they certainly do or else thy may have an apneac episode and die) but also they need to be held and stroked and talked to…in a word… loved. And that this has a direct impact on their chances of survival and even increases their physical development. So we have here an example of how incorporating the insights of one discipline (religious values and a concept of human dignity) have a direct impact on the health of patients and thus enrich our practice of medicine.”
Sharktaco:”I would also propose that a baby (as any child can) picks up on not just your touch but on your mood or emotional state. They feel the love you feel for them and it effects them.
If that is an example of how concepts of “meaningâ€? and “loveâ€? and the like can impact and improve medicine, I would be very interested as to how it could enrich our understanding of the universe as well. ”
Gizmo: “Be careful. You might just find out *how* “loveâ€? works in our psyche. Congratulations. You just reduced *it* to a series of chemical reactions and processes. Scary isn’t it? ”
Precisely Gizmo. Sharktaco is not taking the step from love as a mystical force to understanding what love is on a biological level, Aska scientist why we are wired to love and respond to it and you might get an answer from like “for survival”. A scientist will ask what are love’s demonstrable physiological effects in the loved one? One answer might be stress reduction. Ask how does stress reduction improve our chances of survivial? And you get all sorts of answers on many levels, including a stronger immune system.
If we are hard wired to love our children then is this a value introduced by religion? Or is it more likely that this became a religious value because we are hard-wired that way and some wise, more evolved, more aware elders became conscious of this by observation and embraced and promoted it?
November 24th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
“If we are hard wired to love our children then is this a value introduced by religion? Or is it more likely that this became a religious value because we are hard-wired that way and some wise, more evolved, more aware elders became conscious of this by observation and embraced and promoted it?”
There is no argument that it would be this one because regardless of how one thinks got that way (whether through evolution or Godly design) religion is not about saying that some higher being has imposed rules on to us, but that these rules (like how we need God) are an integral part of who we are as humans.
So as you said, it is not a value introduced by religion, it is a value discovered by religion (ie sages and elders who observed the human condition in their pursuit of who we are and meaning and morals which is what religion is the pursuit of.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
intersting typo:
when I said “(like how we need God)” I meant to say “(like how we need love)”
Does that qualify as a Freudian slip?
November 24th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Here’s another Freudian slip of yours…
“operative organizing life principle”
November 24th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Sharktacos, your 2:46 a.m. 11/24/05 post takes issue with my claim on 11/23 that ID presupposes the possibility of preternatural intervention. I think garym expressed it pretty well in the post just before mine. Your assertion that my claim is “a pretty huge mischaracterization of ID� would seem to indict garym as well.
Your follow-up comment that ID “is about incorporating a way of exploring our world that allows us to discover things beyond the material� doesn’t explain anything. The only sense I can make of it is that somehow understanding that certain intricacies of the world couldn’t have come about through chance and the operation of natural law allows us to discover things (like God? Love?) that aren’t matter, or are more than matter. Nothing about ID seems to support that view. I think even ID supporters don’t like to claim ID proves the existence of God. ID actually dampens the awe one feels upon contemplating the universe by telling us, “never mind, you can’t figure it out because a designer you can’t understand created it.�
I’ll grant you this. Proponents of ID point out the “designs� they think could only have come about through a designer. Those of us who haven’t heard about these “designs,� or thought about them recently, can gain a new appreciation of the universe by considering them.
At any rate, if you’re so sure preternatural intervention isn’t presupposed, or even overtly invoked, by ID, can you cite something authoritative written or spoken by ID proponents to support your view?
November 24th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
>>>Nice post. What do you think about the idea that there is some sort of opperative organizing life principle in nature in addition to the evolutionary process?>>>
Not sure. But sometimes I think that maybe the universe is sort of a organized chaos. Or a chaotic order. How do you like that one?
Maybe the operative part is that there really isn’t any control, but rather it was set in motion and that’s just the way it will be; a randomness — which is a sort of order. Or like I said before, a “chaotic order/organized chaos.”
There’s still a set of laws of matter that we still have to follow. I see it as set in motion; freely, not controlled. It will even fit into the freewill concept. I just don’t buy the puppet master idea.
I mean, if you want to call an atom a god. By all means. You could say the same thing about the universe. It’s still made up of stars, planets and matter. I don’t think you will ever find a controlling god out in the universe. Especially not by science.
November 25th, 2005 at 3:21 am
“I think that maybe the universe is sort of a organized chaos. Or a chaotic order. How do you like that one?”
I do like that actually
“I don’t think you will ever find a controlling god out in the universe.”
In my experience God is not controlling. Maybe if I were to have made up a concept of what I think God should have been like, I would have postulated a controlling God, because it would be nice if our world was not such a dangerous place. But that’s not our world. Our would is broken and dangerous. And at the same time filled with beauty and love. How do you like that one?
November 25th, 2005 at 10:10 am
The notion of “what God should have been like” speaks to a human need ( protection, safety) in a seemingly chaotic world, not understood, “broken and dangerous” containing “beauty and love”( all non-neutral terms). Religion can calm such fears.
Science is a dicipline. It strives to be neutral, or as near neutral as we can get, with regard to values. Science works to explain, to unravel and understand the universe bit by bit. It cannot be subject to ratification by religious views. That would kill science. (Science can for some, calm fears so as to be able to see beauty, evoke feelings of love and wonder as well.)
But we cannot mix science and religion without losing both in the battle and dividing ourselves further.
So this is about tolerance, as some say, politics. I can understand that some feel their beliefs threatened by science and so are attacking it.
Aren’t we arguing also about what is truth and how we arrive at it?
November 25th, 2005 at 1:38 pm
>“I don’t think you will ever find a controlling god out in the universe.�>
My original quote above…
>>>In my experience God is not controlling. Maybe if I were to have made up a concept of what I think God should have been like, I would have postulated a controlling God, because it would be nice if our world was not such a dangerous place. But that’s not our world. Our would is broken and dangerous. And at the same time filled with beauty and love. How do you like that one?>>>
Actually, my quote two paragraphs above was a two-parter. Let me explain. When I was talking about a “controlling god” it was in reference to the conceopt of an “unseen hand that makes things happen — a cosmic puppet master, per se.” I did not mean to emphasis the word controlling, but rather refute the idea that it’s managed; rather a set of rules (of matter and space) that are set in motion — freely.
The second part, in reference to “controlling god” was meant to suggest that you will never find “god” by using science. For example, by studying atoms or chemistry or physiology or cosmology you will never “find god” by scientific means; i.e. finding meaning or a “little white-haired old man with a wooden cane” under a electron microscope. So I mean this literally, “finding.”
This doesn’t mean that you can’t step back and be amazed by the complexity of it all — or read about religion or mysticim or poetry and “find” god that way. But that’s not science. That’s our own depiction of beatuty and poetry or religion. Which in itself could be broken down scientifically as well.
By the way, I agree with Potter’s post above. Especiall when he said, “Science is a dicipline. It strives to be neutral…”
This is why I have a problem with ID. I strives to undermine the discipline of science by mixing it with obscurity. In the end, this type of political gamesmanship will fail because we’ll just find ourselfs back where we started — having to find answers to the material word we live in.
If you plan to find an “unseen” force by using science. By all means, have at it. You’ll still have to prove it if it’s to be called science. If not, then it’s just religion/mysticism.
November 25th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
Being from Kansas and not truly a conservative, I may regret this but, here it goes. As far as Kansas is concerned, 5his push for ID did not start in the halls of politics but in the small towns in Kansas. The most accurate assessment of the issue on the show I thought came from Rabinowitz in saying that social conservatives are railing back against a culture that is increasingly calling them “narrowminded” “fundies” as several people who posted here did.
There are incidents in Kansas, verified and documented, of high school science teachers aggressively demeaning their Christian students who refusive to give up their “crap” notions of the origin of the universe.
Christian conservatives in this state have decided that they want to option at the local level to determine what their students are taught. Notice that the board did not mandate that any specific religious view be taught or that evolution not be taught. Some communities will change what’s taught in their classrooms but, if truth be known, the vast bulk of districts would not change the way they teach science, at all.
What the parents in, say, Clay Center or Newton want is to be able to have their students instructed in manner in keeping with their beliefs and not, in a manner that someone Chicago, Washington DC or even Topeka Kansas dictates. And why should a single parent in Ulysses expect her taxes to support a science curriculum, not that teaches a healthy skepticism of the world around her children but that is openly hostile to her beliefs?
BTW, please do me the favor of sparing me the ID is not science argument. I don’t disagree with you and more importantly, I don’t care. I care what is taught to my children but you don’t live in Kansas and if you do, in fact, live in Kansas, you don’t live in my community and if you do, you mostly likely don’t live in my child’s school district. In which case, let’s talk. Otherwise, please don’t try to sell me on the validity or fallacy of ID.
This is exactly what the issue is about. It’s about small communities raising their children as they see fit even if Dr. Behe, Christopher Lydon, Pat Robertson, Prof. Miller, or Dorothy Rabinowitz don’t agree. My gosh, when California shot itself in the foot by adopting a whole-word only reading curriculum, where were Kansans? Minding their own business.
You know, the Teamsters recently left the AFL/CIO, in part, because of union resources(read workers’ money) going towards philosophies (in this case political) that don’t reflect the beliefs of it’s members(read, the DNC). Why should tax payers not have it any better?
November 25th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Timkar:
Any science teacher that is belittling a student for his/her religion should be reprimanded or suspended. In fact science teachers should be trained how to deal with religious issues that pop up in a respectful manner and swiftly (not dwell on it or judge). Science teachers should teach science and not have their hands tied either.
Many believers have managed to adjust their beliefs to accommodate science but biblical literalists (”narrowminded fundies”) feel deeply threatened by some science, ie evolution, geology, archeological findings etc.. It rocks their foundations.Their foundations need rocking in my opinion if they want to be part of the march of humanity. If not they can isolate themselves in closed communities.
I don’t know how you resolve this since science is required in our educational system and ultimately in our society as a whole for survival. Scientific knowledge is essential; the basics need to be understood by every student. And our survival may depend on understanding, for instance, evolution.
Evolution is a settled issue amongst the overwhelming majority of scientists. It’s as settled as two and two are four. But if I am taught otherwise in my community schools or persuaded to believe or question that it is not four, that the sum is five for instance, and you, who live in another community, insist no, it’s it’s nine, where does that leave us?
Should I tell you to mind your own business? Or do we want to know what the sum of two and two is? How do we meet? Where is the authority? What is the truth? What do we base it on if we have no rules?
Do I want to go to your doctors? No! Do I want to buy your products? No!
Should a community decide by majority what it’s children will learn and not learn and tell everyone else to butt out? Isn’t this the opposite of the movement to have national standards that will keep us competitive in the world?
Also if your community decided by majority no science, or no evolution, those in the minority would have to put up with it or move. This is what I mean by dividing us.
November 25th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
Timkar: We are also talking about the Constitution and specifically about separation of church and state.
A community, like LA can decide it wants to teach a “whole word only” curriculum as an experiment. That has nothing to do with religious views. Christian conservatives on the other hand do not have a right to determine what is taught or not taught in the public schools even on a local level. Nor can they or should they open the door to the possibility of religious views being taught, especially not in science class.
Christian conservatives can send their children to private schools.
November 25th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
So Potter, by your analysis, a parent does not, in fact, have the right to teach his or her child what they wish them to know but that, truly, the state will decide what they believe. So, in those cases where the views of the parent differ from the state, perhaps it would be best to remove the child and send the parent in for re-education? Perhaps we could establish camps for recovering fundies, who, apparently, should be brought to understand their backwards thinking will no longer be tolerated in the modern and “enlightened” society.
Again, keep in mind that the vast majority of science classes would not change one bit in Kansas and that, most likely, we would continue to rank higher in science scores then 66%-75% of the rest of the nation, including those states of those who seem to think that we need to be ‘rocked.’
Of course all of this is absurd. But it sure seeems as if you’re saying that a group of 100-200 families(frenquently the size of a community in Kansas) cannot in fact choose what to teach their kids and must contribute money to a system that in increasingly hostile towards them. There just seems somoething fundamentally wrong with that. Apparently, in our modern society, if you don’t like the game you’re not even allowed to take your ball and go home. You WILL stay and you WILL play and you WILL like it.
Keep in mind, that no ones changing national standards or the university curriculums or the various entrance exams. Kansans who adopt, “wrong-headed” ways of thinking wouldn’t be selling you high tech products or staffing your hospitials because they wouldn’t graduate.
What I have found ironic about this discussion is that, in part, what Kansas is trying to do is to widen the umbrella to allow multitude of views to be explorered and debunked where necessary; to allow a wider diversity of views, something the secular left is constantly screaming for on every other issue. Apparently, widening the umbrella to include the views of Christians in the discussion is just too much, thank you.
November 25th, 2005 at 8:47 pm
BTW, Christian Conservatives can, in fact, send their kids to private schools if they are willing to pay for two ediuctions at the same time. Something that single mom in Ulysses couldn’t do, despite Kansas’s higher standard of living.
November 25th, 2005 at 10:33 pm
I agree with timkar (11/25/05) concerning the comment of Dorothy Rabinowitz, who said on the program that religious conservatives are reacting to “efforts to drive all forms of religious public observation out of American life.� But I don’t agree that all supporters of ID have a fundamentalist perspective. ID doesn’t come right out of the Bible or any other scripture.
Many supporters of the theory of evolution, including Potter, have overreacted to attempts to expose students to ID. I think a more moderate approach is called for.
Consider Kansas. The state school board previously defined science (I’m not sure why they felt it necessary to define science) as “the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.� The revised definition: “Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.� If the theory of intelligent design hadn’t been invented, the revised definition probably wouldn’t have aroused much interest. Ken Miller says the removal of “natural explanations� shows the intention to teach students that supernatural explanations are a legitimate part of science. However, the quoted definition doesn’t say that. Also, the assertion in the original definition that science is limited to natural explanations is too narrow. Mathematics is a science. It seems inappropriate to say that natural explanations lead us to such results as the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem or Godel’s Proof. Political science and the science of jurisprudence involve non-natural explanations.
(I do object to two things in the Kansas revised definition, but my objections don’t directly relate to the present controversy. First, science isn’t limited to explanations of “natural phenomena.� “What we observe in the world around us� is better. Second, the words “more adequate� are superfluous. More adequate than what?)
Don’t get me wrong. I’m for eliminating or keeping out “In God We Trust,� “under God,� prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, etc. We have millions of churches that supply all the religion Americans need. Official religion not only isn’t needed; it infringes on the religious liberty of believers who don’t accept the official religion. But I say let the children in on the discussion about ID, which they’re bound to hear about outside of school. There should be carefully crafted guidelines against instructing that ID successfully refutes the theory of evolution, or is an alternative to the theory of evolution accepted by scientists. Students should be taught why the vast majority of scientists think ID theory isn’t scientific. Students will benefit from learning about ID under the guidance of trained professionals. They may actually gain more appreciation for the theory of evolution after having thought about the ID challenge. I have no problem with a small percentage of time in science classes being devoted to this. If some of the children go to homes or churches where ID is advocated and have a better understanding of the issues, what’s wrong with that?
November 25th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
>>>Apparently, widening the umbrella to include the views of Christians in the discussion is just too much, thank you.>>>
Timkar, what about Buddhism and Islam? Confucianism?
November 25th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
I was thinking about putting one of these in our public schools…
http://china.tourism-asia.net/gifs/religion-budhism.jpg
November 26th, 2005 at 2:02 am
>Timkar, what about Buddhism and Islam? Confucianism?
Sure, no problem.
November 26th, 2005 at 3:45 am
>>> Sure, no problem.
Satanic Statues? That’s a religon too! What about Wiccan?
November 26th, 2005 at 4:02 am
Here’s some more for our STATE SPONSORED religions for our PUBLIC SCHOOLS to establish…
Hinduism - Sikhism - Jainism - Taoism - Shintoism - Divination - Astrology - Freemasonry - Scientology - Animism - Voodoo - Santeria - Totemism - Shinto - Zoroastrianism
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave…
November 26th, 2005 at 8:33 am
Timkar says: ” So Potter, by your analysis, a parent does not, in fact, have the right to teach his or her child what they wish them to know but that, truly, the state will decide what they believe. So, in those cases where the views of the parent differ from the state, perhaps it would be best to remove the child and send the parent in for re-education? Perhaps we could establish camps for recovering fundies, who, apparently, should be brought to understand their backwards thinking will no longer be tolerated in the modern and “enlightenedâ€? society.”
Timkar, you mischaracterized what I wrote. Parents have the right to teach their children whatever they want, What they cannot do is dictate what everybody else will learn or not learn in the schools. What they cannot do is demand that religious concepts are taught or even discussed in science class. ID can be a part of a comparative religion curriculum or discussed in a philosophy course, but not in science class on an equal footing or opposed to evolution. That is what this discussion is about.
The schools, don’t forget are paid for by everybody’s taxes. In cases where the parents do not want their children to learn what is in the schools they can send their children to private schools or home school them. Nor did I say that the parent should be re-educated and all the rest. People are free to reject whatever they do not wish to know and experience the consequences but they cannot hijack science because they feel so threatened.
November 26th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Manning 120- Yes, I am alarmed that ID would be part of a science curriculum and to boot presented as an alternative view to evolution. If students would benefit from the discussion that you describe let it be AFTER they understand what science is. Then ID should be dismissed as not science. I suspect that ID proponents would not stand for that presentation of it. What they seem to want is ID presented as an alternative view to evolution to be injected into the curriculum at the appropriate point in a science course. Then Gizmo’s suggestion comes in about Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Tao, Animism etc… You no longer have science! Yes I am alarmed about that! You do have comparative religion though.
There is no question that students would gain from these discussions, yes let’s discuss this,
but not in science class. And while we are at it let’s discuss the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings.
Here is an article by Daniel L.Hartl (evolutionary biologist at Harvard)
quoted from the article:
“The molecular evidence shows incontrovertibly that species have come into being gradually throughout the history of life on Earth. Darwin could not have dreamed of such a spectacular confirmation of his theory of descent with modification. For creationists, this must be a nightmare, for any sensible model of creationism would predict cows to have cow molecules, goats to have goat molecules, and snakes to have snake molecules.
So creationists have shifted ground to promote a theory called “intelligent design,â€? which asserts that the complexity of features such as the vertebrate eye or the molecular motor that drives the flagellum in bacteria must have arisen instantaneously as a result of purposeful and intelligent design. Although the designer is not specified, this sly dissimulation is a transparent attempt to dodge the Supreme Court rulings in Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) holding that the First Amendment prohibits any state from requiring teachers to promulgate “the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogmaâ€? (Epperson v. Arkansas 393 U.S. 97).”
Better Living Through Evolution
November 26th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Potter, there’s a serious question about whether ID is creationism in disguise. Sure, people like Pat Robertson see ID as a sort of ersatz creationism that belies the theory of evolution. That doesn’t prove ID has no arguable secular merit; nor would ID’s claims, if true, invalidate the entire theory of evolution. For example, asserting that the eyes of vertebrates are too complicated to have evolved doesn’t entail rejecting that vertebrates have evolved.
Http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4216 references claims by Michael Behe and William Dembski on the secular nature of their theory. They say the theory of ID “flows naturally from the data itself – not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs,� and that ID doesn’t require that the designer be God. ID proponents are upset that the University of Kansas planning to offer a religion course based on the thesis that ID is “mythology� like creationism. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/13237625.htm By the way, students not well versed in the theory of evolution, such as religion, sociology, or philosophy students, aren’t as well equipped to consider ID’s merits as students of evolution.
The New York Times printed a lengthy article by Daniel C. Dennett on August 28, 2005 in which Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, claimed that ID is “one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science,� and that its advocates have misused or misdescribed the work of scientists. After studying the article, it became apparent to me that Professor Dennett had presented almost no evidence to back up these claims.
Similarly, Daniel L.Hartl may have evidence for his claims that ID is a “sly dissimulation� and “transparent attempt to dodge the Supreme Court rulings.� But Hartl’s article doesn’t provide that evidence. Until you or Hartl remedy that, I’m inclined to take Behe and Dembski at their word. Accusing them of being in league with Pat Robertson is akin to McCarthyism unless you have solid evidence that they really don’t believe their public pronouncements.
Even proponents of ID agree that it’s been rejected by the vast majority of scientists, largely because they believe it isn’t scientific. Since there’s a raging controversy about it, and it does concern science, I think science courses, as well as other types of courses, can and should include discussion of ID. Professor Hartl’s article would be well suited for that, except for its unsupported claims about the intentions and motivations of ID proponents. If ID becomes more widely accepted by scientists (which seems most unlikely), then the way in which it’s covered will change. For now, students need to know why only a few scientists accept ID’s challenge to some aspects of the theory of evolution.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:15 pm
>>>Similarly, Daniel L.Hartl may have evidence for his claims that ID is a “sly dissimulation� and “transparent attempt to dodge the Supreme Court rulings.� But Hartl’s article doesn’t provide that evidence. Until you or Hartl remedy that, I’m inclined to take Behe and Dembski at their word. Accusing them of being in league with Pat Robertson is akin to McCarthyism unless you have solid evidence that they really don’t believe their public pronouncements.>>>
The evidence for me is how they use the language. It’s deceptive. Merely saying, “empirical evidence” proves nothing. The evocation of those words doesn’t make it true. And even if someone used the “eye of the beholder” argument — it still wouldn’t address that ever so important thing called SCIENTIFIC PROOF! Heck, I could say I see pink bunny rabbits in space. Does it make it true — scientifically? If you allow this to happen to science is thwarts it’s true purpose. This is dangerous dogma!
The point is that ID is not meant to prove SOILD EVIDENCE. It’s meant to be OBSCURE! On purpose! I mean come on. This is why politicians are involved!
>>>I think science courses, as well as other types of courses, can and should include discussion of ID.>>>
There’s no difference between the language of creationism and ID. Both claim either a central figure of creation (creator) or an intelligent aspect (the intelligent part) that isn’t necessarily a “god” per se, but is supposed to paint a picture of an “intelligent force” that “designed.” Even I was to humor you and say it was true. It’s still not science. It’s more of a mysticism theory. End the end, to be science, you still have to prove it. Not just keep evoking “empirical evidence” over over…
It sounds more like a wishful thinking slogan to me — meant to sound authoritative for the media/lawyers.
November 26th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
>>>For example, asserting that the eyes of vertebrates are too complicated to have evolved doesn’t entail rejecting that vertebrates have evolved.>>>
Define, “too complicated.”
Too complicated for whom? Those that don’t understand it? Or the mechanism of biology and physics?
Why is it that every time something is “too complicated” the C/ID folk use it to say, “You see! There’s more out there! We don’t know it all! Evolution is flawed!” Blah, blah, blah…
Here’s a hint. What is “too complicated” today will be better understood tomorrow. Kinda refutes that “too” part, doesn’t it?
November 26th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Manning120: The violation upon evolutionary theory and therefore upon science by ID proponents is that they are saying that Evolution/ science is allowed to explain only so much and no more. And this is because, there needs to be room for a certain concept of God to fill the gap.
I quote Manning 120:”By the way, students not well versed in the theory of evolution, such as religion, sociology, or philosophy students, aren’t as well equipped to consider ID’s merits as students of evolution.”
The uproar is not about teaching ID to students well versed in evolution, but teaching ID alongside of evolution. We are not talking about college level courses either. At least I am not under the impression that we are.
What would be wrong with discussing this issue in a class about Ameriocan history or government (the Constitution vis a vis issuing regarding separation of church and state)
Also I have no problem with Intelligent Design being discussed as an example given briefly in the context of an introductory series of lectures about what science is.
Also it would be instructive to have a course, probably college level, on religion and science through the centuries.
All this is not my impression of what ID proponents have in mind.
I think what Daniel C. Dennet meant in his NYTimes article was that ID is deceptive. It tales advantage of people’s ignorance or lack of expertise. That accepted, children, students, who are impressionable should be well armed before they are exposed so they can do the critical thinking necessary.
Finally, what would be wrong with inviting some science teachers who can explain evolution into Sunday school classes? I mean just to give another view……….
November 27th, 2005 at 9:31 am
I apologize for the uncorrected typos in the above post.
Manning120, I quote you from above:
“The New York Times printed a lengthy article by Daniel C. Dennett on August 28, 2005 in which Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, claimed that ID is “one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science,â€? and that its advocates have misused or misdescribed the work of scientists. After studying the article, it became apparent to me that Professor Dennett had presented almost no evidence to back up these claims.”
I link the article in question below. Since this article is for a general audience I don’t think you can expect the detail that you get in the Hartl piece however Dennett does spend the whole article in fact trying to clear the fog created by ID proponents given that there is by admission no content in ID. Since ID has “no content” ( but not no implications) how do you argue against it? So the hoax is that ID proponents have managed to cause a “contoversy” without putting forth anything substantive that can be argued or tested by scientific method.
I quote Dennett explaining the hoax:
“To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.
Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist’s work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a “controversy” to teach.
Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. “Smith’s work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat,” you say, misrepresenting Smith’s work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: “See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms.” And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.
William Dembski, one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design, notes that he provoked Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response that Dr. Dembski characterizes as “some hair-splitting that could only look ridiculous to outsider observers.” What looks to scientists — and is — a knockout objection by Dr. Schneider is portrayed to most everyone else as ridiculous hair-splitting.
In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, “You haven’t explained everything yet,” is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn’t explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn’t yet tried to explain anything.
To formulate a competing hypothesis, you have to get down in the trenches and offer details that have testable implications. So far, intelligent design proponents have conveniently sidestepped that requirement, claiming that they have no specifics in mind about who or what the intelligent designer might be.
Show Me The Science by Daniel C. Dennett
Dennett in this article points out, better than I can, why presenting ID in science class opens a big can of worms, presenting very difficult problems for science teachers, thus undermining the teaching of science and in the process giving legitimacy, selectively at that, to something that is not even within the realm of science except for the fact that it crudely assaults.
November 28th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
To all of you: we’d love your feedback about this great comment thread here.
November 28th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
Katherine asks why this thread is so active. Here’s my 20 minutes (of writing, not reading-time!) worth:
Perhaps what makes the topic so volatile is this: science measures the universe, but doesn’t (yet?) have any theory to the perennial question ‘why?’
Sadly, I suspect this is an apples and oranges problem, because our language – the tool of our cognition – favors metaphors of construction over those of growth. So, those of us thinking back toward the ‘creation’ believe they’re looking for an event, and a deliberate one at that, and our language/cognition habits automatically place this event in the past. Yet what science is likely measuring isn’t a past event – ‘the big bang’ and its ‘residue’– but an ONGOING creation. Meanwhile our language-molded minds don’t want to shake off the harness of our cultural biases to see this.
Well, I can tell you that it’s hard, but not impossible. And of course it’s much easier to latch onto religious explanations hatched centuries ago when the universe couldn’t be so accurately measured. These religious explanations were forged by the same language patterns we use today, and therefore make internal sense even when all the measurable evidence provided by science shows these explanations to be fatuous.
So, we debate between fatuous explanations bolstered by centuries of official sanction, and new explanations that require at least some scientific thinking to comprehend. This is because our common thought processes are slanted toward ‘constructionist’ metaphors (to coin a notion) instead of ‘self-generationist’ metaphors (to coin another – and see how inelegant and unnatural that sounds in our language!) to explain the universe.
Finally, because we’re BORN into being, and because we instinctively comprehend things based on our own life’s lessons, we assume the universe must have a parent – it makes no common sense that it’s SELF-generating. Nor do we feel comfortable with the notion that it’s alive.
But these aren’t failures of science to explain so much as they are products of our conceptual shortcomings.
November 29th, 2005 at 7:33 am
I find you can’t tell anybody anything that they don’t in some way already know or want to know. So the struggle to get points across. After that I have to say that I feel strongly that there is a right and a wrong here based on how we have agreed ( implicitly by coming or remaining) to live as a society here. This also is a traditional view in a sense, albeit relatively newer tradition ( separation of religion and science, church from state). We used to call this a great experiment.
So it’s not only language, but your point is a good one Nikos. When you say “parent” some think “meaning, purpose, protection,etc.” When you say “self-generating” all that reassurance goes away and people feel threatened and insecure and fight for dear life to protect what they believe in.
All this is coming to a head now. Whereas in the past we could reside within our neat little boundaries with like-minded people, we cannot now. We cannot afford the apples and oranges problem; our problems are too great and we have the means to be more in touch with each other or we are butting up against each other into our designated spaces in various ways. It’s going to take a lot of opening up and letting go to save this experiment tough.
November 29th, 2005 at 11:51 pm
Potter, it was good of you to display Professor Dennett’s article. My original response to it used to be on the New York Times “Human Origins� thread, but has recently been removed. I saved it on my computer.
Contrary to the tenor of your comments, my criticism of Dennett isn’t about his critique of ID. Rather, I question the evident lack of support in the article for his characterization of named proponents of ID as disingenuous, if not blatantly dishonest. Dennett said that Dembski “notes� that he “provoked� Thomas Schneider, a biologist, into a response “that could only look ridiculous to outside observers.� Dennett concludes that Dembski thereby “portrayed� Schneider’s scientifically appropriate objection as “ridiculous hair-splitting.� Does Dennett mean that Dembski tricked Schneider into embarrassing himself in the eyes “outside observers�? That seems very unlikely. What “outside observers� found Schneider’s response ridiculous? You just can’t tell from the limited information Dennett provides. Dennett also says that George Gilder, a long-time affiliate of the Discovery Institute, has said ID “itself does not have any content.� Obviously ID doesn’t assert the same type of content as the theory of evolution; it attempts to discredit at least some of latter’s content. Does that mean ID has no merit? Did Gilder admit that? Again, Dennett doesn’t provide enough information to answer the question.
Another important deficiency in Dennett’s piece is his charge, which seems often repeated, that ID proponents are manufacturing a controversy. This is used by ID opponents as a ground for not exposing young students to ID in the classroom. But as anyone can tell by the number of rather passionate posts in this thread, as well as all over the Internet and in the rest of the media, there’s a controversy. Dennett makes the logical error of concluding that because there shouldn’t be a controversy, there isn’t one.
It’s important to know whether the leaders in ID theory lack personal integrity. I hope someone can either provide needed proof for Dennett’s claims or lay them to rest (which would say something about Dennett’s personal integrity; but of course he’s not alone).
November 30th, 2005 at 5:09 am
>>>>But as anyone can tell by the number of rather passionate posts in this thread, as well as all over the Internet and in the rest of the media, there’s a controversy. Dennett makes the logical error of concluding that because there shouldn’t be a controversy, there isn’t one.>>>
There SHOULD NOT be controversy in terms of the nature of science and the methods used to validate it.
There SHOULD be a controversy in terms of teaching ID in public schools.
>>>Again, Dennett doesn’t provide enough information to answer the