Critics and Analyses of ID
"When everyone is against you, it means that you are absolutely wrong — or absolutely right."
- Albert Guinon
Critics of ID abound, which as I have pointed out in a previous post on The Design Paradigm, can be a very good thing for ID. How is an intelligent design researcher supposed to approach critiques leveled against ID? What kinds of critics are out there and how can one tell which are helpful and which are simply belligerent? This essay is intended to lay out a few helpful definitions and pointers for those seriously researching intelligent design.
A significant problem in tackling this issue is that, as Steve Fuller observed, "Every new theory is born refuted." New concepts in science do not always fit with all of the current theories, demarcations, and the interpretations of known data. Because of this, it is very easy to level substantial and weighty evidence-based criticism that would seem to refute the ID researcher’s premises, but what is actually happening is what I like to call "paradigm friction." Paradigm friction occurs when a new scientific idea goes against the grain of currently accepted ones.
Reconstructing constructive criticism
This paradigm friction causes heat and smoke in discussion of a new scientific idea, and serves to illustrate the fact that there are antithetical elements at work that may or may not be reconcilable. ID researchers must at least listen to their critics, even if it is obvious that the critic has no interest in meeting a point at face value. Often, antagonism can blind the critic to seeing any good in ID research. Yet, researchers of ID should always remember that any criticism has the potential of being helpful, no matter how bias the source. Foils often prove very useful in articulating ideas and clarifying points of disagreement. Regularly, the useful criticism is nearly lost amidst the useless information, and so an ID researcher must be willing to put in the time to hear the criticism and reconstruct what maybe helpful from the critique.
I propose that ID researchers apply a type of "helpful tractability test" to critiques of intelligent design, especially critiques of their own research. If you learn of a critique, I encourage you to read it as many times as it takes for you to understand your critic’s point of view. As you are reading a critique, look for helpful or usable statements. As you are reading critical review, ask yourself:
- Is this usable criticism that can make my research clearer or more specific?
- Have I made a mistake?
- Is there a flaw in my method?
- Has my critic misunderstood my research?
- If there is misunderstanding, how can I bring understanding?
Only after thoroughly searching out usefulness should ulterior motives be given any attention. Often the critic cannot be open to ID premises based on philosophical a priori commitments, careerism, or is exploiting paradigm friction. Because of any lack of openness, many critics cannot even entertain the idea to analyze it squarely. Critics are often so taken by the task of completely refuting ID, they entirely miss the possible gain for science that ID offers. Despite these shortcomings, the critic can still point out aspects of research that could use improvement. Always mine for the gold, no matter how much fodder and slag is in the way.
If it is unclear whether the critique is helpful, ask another researcher you trust. Also, ask the critic what they mean if their statements or questions are ambiguous. If it is obviously not helpful, forget about it for now and put it on the shelf. Come back to it later and perhaps some new knowledge will come to light that will bring relevance to the critique.
Only pay attention to nit picking if it helps make your research become more polished and lucid. An ID researcher needs to learn when a critic is using semantics, as opposed to when a critic is using sound thought. Nit picking often conflates the two.
Types of critics
ID researchers must be open to hearing out their critics. Choose carefully when to listen and who to listen to. If a critic knows ID, they can be of great benefit to trimming the fat out of an ID investigation. Remember, the title ‘critic’ does not always mean the person is against ID.
Although it seems paradoxical, the helpfulness of a critic’s comments cannot be measured by how much education the critic has received. It is possible that more education can translate into a type of self-investment into the current paradigm that makes them impotent to consider research approaches besides the ones their professors engrained into them as students. There is nothing wrong with this type of researcher, in general. They apply consistent methods to their research, which is a good characteristic in my opinion. However, they are of little use as a critic of the ID researcher.
One general litmus test of what kind of critic you are dealing with is whether (and to what degree) they know the different sub-hypotheses of ID like Irreducible Complexity, Artifactuality, Counterflow, or Specified Complexity. I advise ID researchers to not waste time on scientific critics of ID who are antithetical and have no interest in learning what ID is about.
The knowledge most critics have of ID is based on information that is available in common media publications or anti-ID websites. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of being a researcher of design. These critics are almost no help to us, but often provide for a very funny and entertaining sideshow, depending on how bold and verbose they are in expounding their ignorance.
Categorical list of critics
Here are some categories of critics an ID researcher may come in contact with. Any ID researcher who has roamed the ID/evolution blogs, sites, and news stories can probably match these descriptions with the name of a critic. I’ll leave that to your own recognizance.
Unhelpful criticsThese are critics that probably cannot help you in your investigation of design.
- Polemical critics - Critics who know nothing about ID, but basically “troll” the subject in order to generate controversy.
- Political critics - Pundits who have lots to say about ID’s political association with the Republican party, the "Religious Right," or Creationism.
- Cop-out critics - Critics who tow the anti-ID party line, even though they see the heuristic value of ID.
- Dogmatic critics - Critics who are absolutely and unswervingly convinced that ID must be completely wrong because “science just can’t do that.”
The amount of good mental up-time most people have in their lifetime is limited, perhaps 45-60 years. My recommendation is that if a critic is antithetical and contrary, do not waste a second of your good years in conversation with them. Unless there are some other motivating factors, avoid contact with these unhelpful critics.
Almost helpful critics- Epicyclisitic critics - Critics who are absolutely and unswervingly convinced that ID must be completely wrong because the preponderance of the evidence shows us that the blind regularity of nature can account for the appearance and diversity of life.
- Tentative critics – While tentatively convinced that no scientific value can be derived from a design-theoretic framework, they are also convinced that if any possible good came from ID, it could also be derived from current methodology more parsimoniously.
- Clueless critics - Critics who obviously have a profound depth of understanding in general, but somehow are profoundly mistaken in their criticism of ID. They "just don’t get the point" about design detection or an ID-heuristic.
- Inarticulate critics - Critics that have good insights into where ID needs improving, but can’t quite articulate their ideas in a way that is professional or understandable.
- Rash critics - Critics who are so intemperate that they end up helping ID by embarrasing those who are anti-ID. They typically do this by zealously performing an inarticulate rant against ID, resulting in an entertaining self-abasement, thereby making ID critics look like crackpots. While helpful to the general public status of ID, these critics are probably not going to aid in honing ID research.
These are the critics you want to find and keep very close to you. If they say anything about your research area, listen up. Keep their words at least as close as bookmarks on your web-portal.
- Indifferent critics - Critics who see merit in ID, but could simply careless about it. These critics are helpful because they will sometimes make off-the-cuff remarks that can be valuable, but are generally not a consistent source of useful information. Nobel laureates who have opined on ID often make this category.
- Informed critics - Critics of ID who understand the issues surrounding the concept. These are often other ID researchers.
- Open critics - Open-minded, yet uninformed critics. I find discussion with these critics fascinating. In our discussions, they are tackling ID from perspectives that most other people aren’t thinking about.
- Applicable critics - Those who understand some of the interior aspects of ID, but are nonetheless closed to the idea in general because they see that ID mostly violates scientific constraints or limitations. These critics are definitely speaking to the relevant issues. Some ID critics here at the Design Paradigm and at Telic Thoughts are of this type. Hugh Ross may also be this type of ID critic, based on some of his recent statements.
- Internal critics - Critics of ID who are applying design-theoretic premises in their own research.
- Esse critics - Critics who understand the essence of ID. A critic of this type is very rare, and can be an extremely valuable sounding board or foil. While dogmatic, I think Michael Ruse is this type of critic.
Knowing which type of critic you are dealing with can help save time, and hopefully help save you a good bit of frustration. Deciding when to respond to a critic is a trickier question. When a critic has brought true insight to your research, I would encourage you to acknowledge that fact.
If a critique is proposed in a public discussion forum on the Internet, proceed with caution. Researchers should avoid getting bogged down in public discussion forums, in general. I avoid heavy involvement in public discussion forums like the plague. They generally do not bring any benefit to research, and drain valuable library and lab time. Frequently, there are users waiting to pounce on any response from the ID researcher, creating a rhetorical entanglement that only serves to embarrass and trap the ID visitor into a long and protracted point-by-point exchange that makes no progress on any discussion details. Email correspondence or closed discussion boards are probably a better option.
Before you communicate with a critic (whether online or in person) about design-theoretic research, my advice for the ID researcher is to somehow plum their 1) depth of knowledge concerning ID, 2) knowledge of the field that you desire to apply ID in, and 3) willingness to converse. If they match these qualities, you are golden; proceed with dialogue.
A footnote about Q&A’s
This is a bit off-topic, but I cannot let this point lie for a future essay. A major venue where ID and its critics vie in public view is a debate or panel discussion. Typically, the audience is invited to take part in the discussion near the end of the event. A major embarrassment during these Q&A times is when a supporter from either side gets up to the microphone and rambles without a perceivable statement or question. Stuttering and stammering are not helpful either. If you find yourself at an event and think one of your friends at the venue may be a problem, help them find a willing and helpful friend who can ask the question. It seems that some of these stutterers and ramblers are nothing short of geniuses, but they cannot talk in front of others. Perhaps encourage them to write down their question. Please, if someone you know that stutters or rambles wants to ask a question at a debate, advise them to bring someone along that can form coherent sentences and is able to get to the point with ease in the fewest possible words.
How is an intelligent design researcher…
A what? That’s a category without a member.
Comment by ivy privy — May 25, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
Ha - good point!
Despite some talk of doing research on ID’s suppositions, no ID proponent has yet come up with a hypothesis that would confirm or falsify the existence of a Designer, much less conduct such research.
Comment by Dan — May 26, 2006 @ 3:04 am
The more educated and brilliant the critic, the better. It does not matter if he is polemic, as his determination to make a refutation can be highly useful. For example, Jeff Shallit (Dembski’s former teacher) spent 3 months of his sabbatical preparing a refutation of Dembski’s research. Shallit did in fact find an arithmetic error in Dembski’s book, No Free Lunch. One can therefore be grateful for the free editorial work offered. Bill actually revised the wording of some of his ideas in response to Shallit.
It is important that ID papers be so far above reproach that they can withstand public scrutiny in order to sustain enthusiasm for the research. The way the design argument is framed today versus 20 or 30 years ago is considerably more sophisticated and much harder to refute because it has gone through several iterations with the critics. Many of the kinks in the phrasing of the ideas have been taken out. Critics are also useful in showing us where our lack of clarity may lead to serious misinterpretations of our ideas.
Here is a good example of Walter ReMine effectively using critics to affirm the integrity of his work:
Haldane’s dilemma and peer-review
ReMine enlisted the top population geneticists in the world to review his work. And even in the process of rejection, he managed to get affirmation of the correctness of his hypothesis. ReMine went through several iterations to formulate his paper.
I am still awaiting any response to Albert Voie or David Abel or Hubert Yockey’s work highlighting the problems with the Origin of Life.
I think it would be useful to submit papers even knowing they might be rejected becuase of bias, just to be able to get some free editorial feedback. I much prefer that to people who’ll simply affirm everything I write, and who would be reluctant to hurt my feelings.
Finally, here are some ideas from Bill Dembski regarding critics:
Dealing With the Backlash
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 26, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
As a critic of design, I believe that I have presented my position. I believe that Intelligent Design as presently formulated, namely as a negative argument, is scientifically vacuous.
So my question becomes how does one ’seriously research intelligent design’?
And while the question may raise some eyebrows, I hope to explain why I ask this question.
First “how is Intelligent design inferred”? Through the elimination of (all known) instances of regularity and/or chance. In other words, the set-theoretic complement of regularity and chance. As such, it is a gap theory.
When confronted with this simple fact, ID proponents are quick to shift from their method of ‘detecting design’ to the argument that ‘in criminology or archaeology intelligent design is succesfully detected’ so why the skepticism? The answer seems trivially simple. Intelligent Design’s approach to detect design if flawed and in fact whenever design is detected by archaeology or criminology, it is not based on the simplistic elimination approach but rather on such issues as means, motives, opportunities, capabilities etc. In addition, such inferences are complemented by evidence, either hear-say or direct evidence, such as blood spatters, DNA and so on.
When asked ‘what has ID done for science’ I have seen answers suggesting that Junk DNA, Cambrian explosion etc are better explained by ID, but when asked why ID made such predictions, the arguments quickly return to the creationist arguments on which these are based historically. So let me explain why ID is unable to make any predictions: SInce ID lacks a positive foundation, it cannot make predictions beyond the negative ones used to ‘detect design’. Why should we expect that Junk DNA exists or why should we expect that Junk DNA does not exist? Neither one of these positions follow logically from ID. In order to make such predictions one has to understand the capabilities and limitations of the designer(s). In case of the supernatural designer, which is logically necessitated by ID’s own approach, we cannot limit anything. In other words, ID in this case is scientifically vacuous as it can explain anything and thus nothing.
So why do I say that ID necessitates the supernatural? ID is based on eliminating natural processes and calls what remains ‘intelligent design’. I argue that the only kind of ‘designer’ that matches such descriptions is a supernatural designer. A lot of this confusion is caused by ID claiming, without much of any supporting evidence, that natural intelligence cannot be captured by regularity and chance. In fact, I argue that the two processes are exquisitely able to capture the abilities and actions of natural intelligence. To a large extent human intelligence is guided by regularities, and not surprising, such regularities can be captured mathematically. But people do not always act totally predictable which brings into play the concept of ‘chance’.
I believe that until ID can explain why it is scientifically relevant, why it is scientifically fruitful and what Intelligent Design research looks like, its claims should be rejected. And yes, I am aware of examples given. My response is that ID proponents have to explain where lies the direct link to the research of fruitfulness and the basic claims of Intelligent Design.
For instance, intelligent designers argue that the ‘code’ in DNA somehow is relevant to intelligent design. What is the foundation for this claim as it comes to the basic foundation of ID? Complex specified information? Not really, CSI is merely the claim that in biology, anything with a function (specification) and which is not well enough understood (complex) is thus designed. What about irreducible complexity? Again, examples exist that explain plausible pathways for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, including predictions. So what is the answer when one asks how ID explains the flagellum or the complement system?
William Demski’s response on ISCID blog.
So let me recapture: Unless ID can explain in some detail and with references to its foundational principles why it is scientifically relevant, one has to reject such claims. Stating that something which has a function and which we do not (yet) understand how it arose (argument from ignorance) or which we believe could never have arisen naturally (argument from incredulity) is designed, is not a good explanation. It cannot even compete with the null hypothesis ‘we don’t know’.
ID critics come in many flavors and until ID proponents will address the many crucial and still unanswered objections to their claims, ID is doomed to remain scientifically vacuous. Enumerating the possible types of critics is not going to help resolve these matters.
So can anyone point me to some ID relevant research? Not just ID inspired, which is a meaningless concept, but actually research which is directly relevant to the foundational claims?
Comment by PvM — May 27, 2006 @ 1:29 am
ID does ‘news’ releases, op-eds and conducts vaguely worded public opinion polls.
No laboratory studies, no peer-reviewed articles, no real science worth a damn.
It been decades now. The ID camp has done NOTHING in the science department. Sad really!
Comment by Cedric Katesby — May 27, 2006 @ 5:33 am
Let’s look at some of the assertions on the Cornell IDEA website
But CSI is an argument from ignorance. Just calling it CSI conflates prediction with negation. Let me explain:
Complex Specified Information in biology consist of the following components
1. It has a function (specification): Note that specification coincides with what one would expect natural selection and variation to achieve.
2. It is complex information: Contrary to common usage of the term, Dembski’s usage basically means that science lacks detailed explanations of how it happend to sufficient detail. But that merely means that information is a measure of our ignorance. In fact, logic dictates that if an ID explanation were to be given (and none seem to be forthcoming) that complexity would also drop to zero as the probability of the system approaches 1. Confused? Well, anytime science explains something in natural terms, the probability of the system arising approaches 1 and the log of 1 is zero (Dembski’s concept of ‘information’). So in other words, CSI is not prediction is any positive sense but merely an argument from ignorance.
More problematic is the concept of a closed system. In a closed system no information can arise either through intelligent design or natural processes (accepting for a moment this false dichotomy). In other words, neither ID nor science can explain information increase in a closed system. Of course, evolution is not a closed system, it involves the transport of information across the boundary between organism and environment. It’s exactly the correlation between information in the genome and the environment which causes information in the genome. So much for CSI being a relevant concept, as it merely is a wrapper to state our ignorance. Note that no ID supporter has yet shown that a particular system contains CSI, not surprisingly since it would 1) require the disproof of known and unknown hypotheses 2) would require sufficiently detailed hypotheses to allow a meaningless probability to be calculated.
Yes, mostly because I predict that the link between the relevant science and ID will be incidental and will not be based on the basic premises of ID. In fact, Dembski made it clear that we should not expect any positive hypotheses of how design happened (remember his ‘pathetic’ comment?)
So from being scientifically fruitful we have reached the concept of helping people do scientific research. For instance the prediction that there are purposes from Junk-DNA does not follow from any ID premise unless we accept that we can say something about the motivation of the designers, but ID proponents insist that ID cannot do such. In other words, the claim that ID has scientific fruitfulness is based on a switch from direct consequence to a mere side effect.
It’s this sloppiness in ID arguments and logic which avoid the simple reality namely that ID as currently formulated, being an eliminative approach, is scientifically vacuous and cannot make any predictions.
So far I have yet to see how ID responds to these observations. Can it deny the foundation of ID in eliminative approaches, can it deny the obvious lack of any scientific contributions of ID that are non-trivial? How does ID explain the flagellum? Or any other system that is considered IC or CSI? Why is it that ID has yet to show any non-trivial calculations that show that a system has CSI? Can ID explain why CSI is used to refer to a gap argument approach where the concept of information and complexity are non-standard and meaningless and the concept of specification is trivial, as anything with function in biology will be specified.
Comment by PvM — May 28, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
The positive argument for ID is the strong analogy between technology and biology, as well as the elegance of biology.
The negative argument is more rigorous in that it eliminates blind stochastic processes as a cause for life. Negative arguments can definitely further science. For instance, in computer science there is a “million dollar problem” — p vs. np. Nobody has found a solution, but the lack of a solution is useful in categorizing which problems are computationally intractable. Likewise, ID may shed light on which problems in biology are “biologically intractable.”
Comment by Art — May 29, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Art said:
And this positive argument, merely an analogy as you admit, is based solely on the appearance of features to be like man-made machines.
Similarly, as has been stated, IDers don’t bother to try to experimentally prove the putatively intractable nature of “irreducibly” complex problems; they merely point to such complexity, with utter incredulity, and label said complexity as apparently irreducible.
Unfortunately, appearances and analogies don’t get you very far in science all by themselves.
Comment by Dan — May 29, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
So the positive argument is merely analogy, not much there then. And the negative argument focuses on a strawman about blind stochastic processes. Of course, ID can be useful as to the extent that it forces researchers to provide sufficiently detailed processes, but that’s not unique to ID nor does such a sceptical perspective require ID. In other words, in both cases ID lacks scientific content.
Comment by PvM — May 29, 2006 @ 10:07 pm
Hi Dan,
And this positive argument, merely an analogy as you admit, is based solely on the appearance of features to be like man-made machines.
It’s not solely based on appearance, but actual functionality too (how they work is similar to how some designed technologies work). Some biological structures are very very analagous to designed technologies (e.g. bats & sonar system, or LED lights in butterflies). That is why the notion of ID is intuitive, IMHO. As for experimentally trying to show the intractability of “irreducibly complex” problems, some ID scientists are trying to do this in the lab.
Comment by Art — May 30, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Hi PvM,
Can you explain why focusing on blind stochastic processes is a straw-man argument?
Comment by Art — May 30, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
That is why the notion of ID is intuitive, IMHO.
Reality is not necessarily intuitive. Example: quantum mechanics. Appealing to intuition is therefore not scientifically rigorous.
—
As for experimentally trying to show the intractability of “irreducibly complex” problems, some ID scientists are trying to do this in the lab.
There are “ID scientists” working in labs on actual “ID research” instead of writing popular books and press releases for the Discovery Institute? Do tell. Here’s a quote from a NYTimes article, “Intelligent Design Might be Meeting Its Maker”, by Laurie Goodstein, December 4, 2005:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
“From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don’t come out very well in our world of scientific review,” he said.
Comment by ivy privy — May 30, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
So there are some ’similarities’ and many ‘differences’ so why should we take these analogies as more than just analogies? Is lightning similar to designed sparks and thus designed. Surely you must understand the limitations of analogies. Thy failed with Paley. As far as the elusive ID research, I am quite skeptical. I have seen some attempts by Dembski or Behe to do some ID relevant ‘research’ and seen it end in a mess of strawmen and misunderstandings.
Do you think that the term accurately describes the mechanisms of evolutionary theory?
Can you describe in your own words how you see evolutionary mechanisms to be ‘blind stochastic processes’
Comment by PvM — May 31, 2006 @ 3:47 am
Art said:
ou’re saying it’s not based upon appearance only, it’s also similarity, and analogous, and intuitive?! Do you know what the definition of a synonym is?
Really? Who? Who would fund such a project? (surely not the Discovery Institute, they’re too busy spending their funding on PR and Legal firms) The only example of this I’ve yet heard is Behe’s single attempt with Snokes, which supported the evolvability of such complexity. Not to mention that ID (and Creation Science before it) has been claiming that such research is legitimately underway for decades.
So the question is, why are you making up bald-faced lies and distortions?
Comment by Dan — May 31, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
Ivy - good quote!
Comment by Dan — May 31, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
What happened?
Wiliam Dembski: Science and Design 1998 First Things 86 (October 1998): 21-27.
Demsbski “No False Positives and the Lust for Certainty” Nov 2002
The explanatory filter went from robust to bust in 4 years? If there existed a “rigorous criterion—complexity-specification—for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones.” in 1998, which would lay to rest the worries of the past, how come that 4 years later, Dembski asserts the opposite?
So when Dembski says that the explanatory filter is free from false positives, he means to say that IFF the explanatory filter is correctly applied and all known and unknown mechanisms have been eliminated THEN design can be accurately inferred.
Otherwise: All bets are off.
Since ID presents no way to establish the likelihood of a scenario in which a new mechanism will show the inference to be flawed as opposed to a true design inference, it seems that the explanatory filter is unable to compete with ‘we don’t know’.
Remember that the lack of false positives was touted as an important characteristic of the explanatory filter, and that if false positives would be caught in the net, it would render the filter useless.
False positives are conclusions of a design inference when in fact natural processes explain the system. History is filled with such false positives and I was thus surprised that Dembski claimed no false positives.
Only recently did I come to realize that all Dembski stated is the tautological statement that if it works it works.
Of course there is no way, using the explanatory filter, to determine if it works.
I wonder how many ID proponents are familiar with this problem? Can it be resolved?
Comment by PvM — June 2, 2006 @ 4:07 am
Stupid Blog of the Week (6-4-06)
This week’s nod (a day late) goes to the Cornell University IDEA club. IDEA stands for Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness, and the blog is called The Design Paradigm. In a hugely stupid post entitled Critics and Analyses of ID, blogger
Trackback by Clever Beyond Measure — June 4, 2006 @ 5:35 pm
Congratulations! “The Design Paradigm” is the recipient of the prestigious and coveted Clever Beyond Measure Stupid Blog of the Week award. Good work!
Comment by Jim Wynne — June 4, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
When did Cornell become a playground for little Christian liars?
It’s funny how the commenters point out the obvious fact that there is nobody doing “ID research” and the poor wittle ID peddlers here just ignore the fact that their pants are down to their ankles.
So tell us IDEA Club Members: who is doing “ID research” and what are the results of that “research” to date which suggest that aliens created all the life forms that ever lived on earth?
We’re all waiting.
Oh, and Salvador Cordova — you really are pathetic. Why don’t you leave these kids alone. Go dig a well in Africa like a respectable missionary.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 8, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
Thank you everyone for your comments and questions,
For those of you mounting an all out ad hominem assault on ID researchers by using words such as stupid, pathetic, etc., please know that this is unnecessary here. You don’t have to insult anyone here in order to be heard.
Some of our bloggers are spending their time trying to remain productively employed during the summer, including myself. Please be patient with us.
I am currently working on a paper that will provide answers to many of the questions you are asking. I almost have a draft complete, and I will leave a note here when I post the paper.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
“ad hominem assault on ID researchers”
Ad hominem on who? What ID researchers?
So, you’re bypassing the peer-review? Big surprise.
No, we’re not talking about squibbly little superficial arguments that imitate science, we’re talking about science. You know, rigorously scrutinized scientific research, controlled and tested from every angle until your mind goes numb, peer-reviewed, etc.
I’ve been working on a paper of my own, on the molecular mechanisms of chemotaxis in fibroblasts - for the last 2 years, and I’ll submit it in the coming month or three, and then I’ll get criticized (and probably rejected the first time around) before it gets published. So I just have to laugh at you when you suggest you can write up a quick draft and expect people to buy your weak arguments as scientific evidence for ID.
But let’s just assume you do have a decent paper coming along - I’m curious, how much time in the lab (or field) have you spent gathering the data for this research???
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 7:11 pm
Dan,
That’s great that you are working on a paper, I wish you well and I hope that you get published.
If you think what I have to say is worth nothing, why are you asking me questions?
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
Because I’m trying to get across the point that your claims, that there are people actually doing scientific research on ID, are bogus.
Sure, your opinions count for something, but don’t confuse opinions with research.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 7:21 pm
I’ll let you pick that bone with the people who are actually doing ID research, like Cornelius Dekker. Perhaps you could email him and ask him?
Very well, it is my opinion that there are people researching intelligent design. How’s that?
If it helps the conversation, when you read the term “ID researcher,” perhaps you could think about “someone researching ID.” Does that help?
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 7:37 pm
You’ve got to be joking.
In the publication list you linked to, not one of those articles appears to discuss ID - Lots of computer-assisted engineering design, microfluidics, and nanotechnology, with some DNA measurements thrown in for fun - but no research on the supposed “irreducible” or “specified” complexity of life, or of the Intelligent Designer, that I could see.
What on Earth is the difference between an “ID researcher” and “someone researching ID”???
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Dan,
Why don’t you email Dekker and ask him? He may disagree with your assessment.
It seems your quarrel is with people claiming that ID proponents are conducting scientific research. Well, if you think that this is impossible, then when I say “ID researcher” think of someone who is inquiring about intelligent design. Think of an ID researcher as someone who is investigating ID. Is that helpful?
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
It seems your quarrel is with people claiming that ID proponents are conducting scientific research.
No, the quarrel is with your claiming that an IDer doing research into nanotechnology, etc, somehow supports your claim that there are researchers trying to scientifically establish the case for the intelligent design of certain aspects of life on planet earth.
Come back to us when your hero actually publishes something on intelligent design rather than nanotechnology.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 8, 2006 @ 8:10 pm
Ok, I’ll email him, since you can’t seem to point to any research he’s conducted and published on regarding ID.
And if you mean “someone who is inquiring about intelligent design,” why do you say “ID researcher”??? I.e. why do you use these terms so casually, when they clearly mean something other than the casual investigations from non-biologist perspectives that you refer to?
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
Dan and Don,
This is a point where there are clearly antithetical sentiments, and again the paper I am writing will clear up some of the questions here. There are researchers of ID who do not actually think that there was an intelligence involved in any aspects of life on planet earth, simply that it is instrumentally advantageous to view life this way. That’s the heuristic value of ID. I’m not going to reproduce my paper here, I’ll post it later.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
There are researchers of ID who do not actually think that there was an intelligence involved in any aspects of life on planet earth, simply that it is instrumentally advantageous to view life this way.
That perhaps is the lamest defense of ID I’ve read anywhere.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 8, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Well why didn’t you say that? That’s a wholely different “can of beans.” I’ve heard that concept mentioned before (most recently a few months ago over at Science & Theology News a few months ago).
But even then, what is this advantage of this heuristic? I.e. what is the difference between viewing life as Designed versus Selected? Both rely upon the strong correlation between structure and function at all levels of biology. What does teleology offer biology that Descent With Modification and Natural Selection do not?
It appears that you will doubtless address these questions in your essay - I look forward to reading (and yes, critiquing) it.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Don,
That’s your opinion, and I highly respect it. The fact remains that ID has instrumental value regardless of your opinion.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 8, 2006 @ 8:42 pm
The fact remains that ID has instrumental value regardless of your opinion.
You ought to make your case before you go calling this a fact. I am going to call it an unsupported assertion.
Comment by ivy privy — June 8, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
“That’s your opinion, and I highly respect it. The fact remains that ID has instrumental value regardless of your opinion. ”
So? Even if true (and I would debate that) it lends absolutely no support to the hypothesis that life on earth is the product the work of an intelligent designer. Nada. None. What’s the point in the context of Intelligent Design as a hypothesis about the observed universe?
Comment by Don Baccus — June 8, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
“For those of you mounting an all out ad hominem assault on ID researchers by using words such as stupid, pathetic, etc., ”
I’m still waiting for you to show me some “ID research” and tell me what the results of that “research” say about the likelihood of alien beings creating all the life forms that ever lived on earth.
What’s the problem, exactly?
When people make statements they are unable to back up, then dissemble in an obvious fashion in response to criticisms of those statements, it is fair to question the veracity and intelligence of the person making the statement. In this context, terms like “stupid” or “pathetic” are not ad hominems. Please try to remember this. You’ll need to understand these simple concepts if you continue to play the rhetorical games that comprise the essential core of “intelligent design theory.”
Comment by Amy Lester — June 8, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
To all,
Just for the record, Dr. Cees Dekker did reply to my question, and the answer is: yes, he’s engaged in philosophical discussions of design in nature, but his research does not address such questions specifically.
I don’t want to go into detail with regards to his response, until (if) he gives me permission to post his response in full, lest I paraphrase him incorrectly, or if he’d rather stay uninvolved in such discussions.
But I’ve forwarded his response via email to Wiglaf, who I hope will concede that Dekker is not, in fact, “Researching ID.”
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
Permission granted! Dr. Dekker’s reply in full:
The answer to your question is simple: I have carried out and published a lot of scientific research but not any scientific experiments that were specifically directed at the question whether or not certian systems display the hallmarks of design. In 99% of my biophysics research (in my lab, but in general as well) the question about the evolutionary origin does not play a role. Accordingly, in our research, the question about the evolutionary origin rarely surfaces. That is not to say that that final 1% is not an interestin issue. It actually is, very much so. But our research program does not address it specifically.
In the Netherlands I have been involved in discussions on design of nature, but these discussions were largely philosophically in nature. It is fair to say that, of course, I carry my experience in nanoscience and biophysics along in such discussions, but it would be incorrect to state that the specific experiments done by me and my group provide direct evidence for ID.
I hope this clarifies the situation.
I must say that I am unhappy to see my name listed as ‘pro-ID’ on the website that you provided. I would not say that myself.
I am convinced of a grand design of nature, and I have expressed sympathy for the much more specific ideas of ID, but pro-ID would certainly be an overstatement of my position.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Good job, Dan. A concession is in order, I do believe …
Comment by Don Baccus — June 8, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
It’s always fun to “discuss” ID with the “professionals.”
Comment by Amy Lester — June 8, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
Wow
Comment by PvM — June 9, 2006 @ 3:11 am
Thank you everyone for your replies:
Don said:
I must have missed that. When did I say that?
Don and Dan,
What am I conceding? That I’m right? I said an ID researcher is someone “inquiring about intelligent design.” Dekker said, “I have been involved in discussions on design of nature.” It seems to me he is inquiring about intelligent design. I concede that I did not say what you thought I said. As far as I can tell, neither did I say what you wanted me to say.
Amy,
‘Stupid’ and ‘pathetic’ are unnecessary insults, and therefore are ad hominem’s, since they are part of an argument directed ‘at the man’ and not ad argumentum ‘at the argument’. I think you have some points that should be seriously considered in this argument. Using crude insults does not help others understand your points; it helps others understand that you are insulting.
ivy privy,
I invite you to read my paper on my unsupported assertion. I will leave a note about it here once I post.
Everyone,
Not all ID researchers (people inquiring about ID) are of the same view about what ID is. Currently, I am exploring the instrumental use of ID. I invite you to read my paper on this usage. I’ll leave a note about it here once I post. I would absolutely welcome your comments.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 9, 2006 @ 9:58 am
The thread is up there for all to read.
Including Dekker’s comment that “I must say that I am unhappy to see my name listed as ‘pro-ID’ on the website that you provided.”
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
‘Stupid’ and ‘pathetic’ are unnecessary insults
True. “Dishonest” is sufficient, and shown to be true by your posts in this thread, and therefore is not an ad hom.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
Wiglaf,
As Don said, “The thread is up there for all to read.”
If you’re going to continue maintaining your ridiculous assertions in stark evidence to the contrary, contending that amateurish philosophical discussions are somehow on par with scientific research, then you’ve truly earned the label “pathetic.” Your lies have helped me lose any respect for you that I might have had.
Thank you. Goodbye.
Comment by Dan — June 9, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
this is just getting silly. Perhaps IDers will learn to first do their homework next time?
Has anyone run across something relevant to ID which does not make it scientifically vacuous?
Comment by PvM — June 9, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
What! Do you dread that my posts are a bad influence on Cornell IDEA club, that I’m corrupting these inquisitive minds with subversive ideas? :-)
Wiglaf,
My view of where to take ID research in the future:
How IDers can win the war
In the interim, Cornell Geneticist John Sanford wrote a devastating critique of naturalistic evolution:
Respected Cornell geneticist rejects Darwinism in his recent book.
And here is a peer-reviewed paper which predicts the demise of the multi-million dollar OOL industry:
Another Pro-ID Paper Passes Peer Review
Sanford’s book and Voie’s Paper could save a lot of money and resources if taken seriously, as their work demonstrates a lot of effort are being wasted on theoretically implausible ideas (Darwinian evolution and OOL). That is of great benefit to the scientific enterprise much like the benefit of the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics steering people clear of the quest for perpetual motion machines, and Keplerian Celestial dynamics steering people from Epicycle theory, and the beginnings of modern chemistry steering people away from Alchemy and Phlogiston. The information theoretic considerations by the ID community have shown Darwininian evolution and OOL are essentially on par with other failed scientific ideas(such as those just listed).
The Darwinist inclination to view biology as an undesigned product of mindless forces has inclined people to view highly informative portions of biology as junk, rather than probe the incredible technology it holds. This is bad for sceince.
The organization of a modem signal would incline the un-initiated to think the signal is nothing but white noise, but with a design perspective, one is able to realize that a modem signal is rich in information. Such is the case on many layers of what previously perceived to be junk, accidents, or noise in biology!
I’m grateful that some evolutionary biologist are honest about the position evoluionary biology holds among other scientists:
And Tara Smith at PT pointed recently to an article in a Standford Medical magazine that no Medical Schools have course on evolutionary biology because Medical Schools find it of little use. In truth, when stripped of what little real science there is in evolutionary theory (such as the good parts of population genetics), evolutionary theory is a hindrance to real scientific exploration.
So ID research is valuable in showing that evolutionary theory (as it is currently phrased) is a scientific dead end, and Coyne’s characterization of his own field was right on.
Thankfully, ID is being supported indirectly by developments in Systems Biology which is inherently design friendly. Systems biology strongly asserts a design paradigm (being somewhat agnostic to the ultimate causes of the design in biology). Systems biology will dominate, and evolutionary biology will decline in it’s importance. As Wilkins said, Darwinism’s position in biology is entirely superflous. So the climate is very bright for ID and rather dim for evolutionary biology (oh, I just learned the phylogeny of Eukaryotes in now in shambles, so much for a supposedly unassailable theory! Check out this peer-reviewed paper Irreducible Nature of Eukaryotes).
So, if ID research in the interim has a lot of focus on exposing the flaws in naturalistic evolutionary theory more power to it. It is evident the way naturalistic evolutionary theory is currently phrased it lurks near the bottom as far a scientific theories go, right down there with Epicycles, Phlogiston, and Alchemy, not up there with Gravity and ElectroDynamics. Helping speed the removal of failed theories (Epicycles, Phlogiston, quest for Perpetual Motion machines )from the scientific enterprise was a good thing in the past, and it will be a good thing in the present.
But as I pointed out, ID does not have to be bound to being only an anti-Darwinian and anti-OOL paradigm, it has the potential to make serious contributions to the understanding of biology as the design paradigm begins to dominate over the evolutionary paradigm. In fact, that change is already happening indirectly in Systems Biology where the design paradigm dominates.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 9, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Has anyone run across something relevant to ID which does not make it scientifically vacuous?
There might be something in it for psychologists interested in studying the phenomena of cognitive dissonance, but other than that, nothing comes to mind.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
Just wanted to chime in with this — as a behavioral ecologist and Cornell grad, I’m ashamed that this blog exists. Not surprised, but ashamed.
Comment by Michael Martin — June 9, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
What am I conceding? That I’m right? I said an ID researcher is someone “inquiring about intelligent design.” Dekker said, “I have been involved in discussions on design of nature.” It seems to me he is inquiring about intelligent design.
By your standard, everyone who inquires about intelligent design, even if only to laugh at its scientific vacuity, is an “ID Researcher”.
PvM is an ID Researcher!
Dan’s an ID Researcher!
I’m an ID Researcher!
Lame.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
I’d disagree respectfully. People on this blog seem to be sincere, although in my personal opinion misguided, about intelligent design. As a Christian, I accept that the universe was designed by our God and that is a position I am willing to defend based on faith. I find it harder that we have to defend such a position by pointing to areas of our ignorance, areas which often get smaller over time, to find our God.
God to me exists in my daughter’s smile, the flowers in our yard, the sunset and the raindbow in the the sky. I find it much harder to see Him present Himself to us via the disease inducing pathways of the flagellum and the Type III Secretory Systems.
All because we cannot envision fully how the flagellum may have evolved naturally?
The blog however raises sincere questions and I believe that the ID movement has caused a lot of confusion through its terminology which is often imprecise and equivocating.
I am presently reading some work on teleology by Ayalay, Ruse and Singer and I am starting to understand why we tend to see ‘purpose’ in biology. Over a century ago, Darwin provided plausible scientific explanations for this ‘design’. If Intelligent Design has better explanations then let them present them. Calling something Intelligent Design because we do not understand it, seems confusing and makes ID scientifically vacuous.
Yet, these blogs allow one to discuss these ideas and shortcomings and hopefully they can make a difference.
Comment by PvM — June 9, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
PvM,
Those views are entirely respectable indeed - but the difference is that you recognize that your views are based upon faith and philosophy. You don’t re-label your views as science or research.
That’s what’s moronic about this TDP discussion: Fools like Wiglaf can’t tell the difference between science and philosophy or faith.
Comment by Dan — June 9, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
PvM
Your sermon about “God” made me gag, but whatever. It’s a free country and I’m used to that sort of thing.
I do take issue with the strawman you chose to address, however. Michael said that as a Cornell student, he was ashamed that THIS blog exists. I am just as ashamed as the blog at Berkeley. This blog doesn’t exist for the purpose of demonstrating that there is a contingent of willfully ignorant religionists who incessently peddle “ID” as “science” on a raft of lies. This blog exists to peddle those lies.
But for comments left by the likes of Dan and Don and others, nobody would learn anything here except for the usual creationist scripts.
My point is simply that Michael has a right to be ashamed and pretending that this blog is “helping” in the way that Pandas Thumb or Pharyngula is helping is truly silly.
Oh, and since it is a free country and we’re all sharing our deepest feelings let me simply ask everyone: please don’t brainwash your children into believing your religious garbage.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 9, 2006 @ 8:32 pm
I should also preemptively address the vacuous argument that is coming down the pike courtesy of our friend Wiglaf. He appears ready to regurgitate some refried Steve Fuller baloney. Steve Fuller’s dishonesty and incompetence and disgusting condensension are well-documented (search Google for “steve fuller liar” and have a field day!).
One of Steve’s favorite lines is that “we” shouldn’t “suppress” “monotheism” because “monotheistic beliefs” allegedly provided the necessary intellectual matrix which enabled our most famous scientists to make their most important scientific discoveries! What is the evidence for this remarkable claim?
Good question. Sadly, Fuller doesn’t have any. And that leaves us with a sort of sick, empty feeling that Fuller is simply, well, preaching his “politically incorrect” belief that certain kinds of people are better than others.
But what does Wiglaf think? Perhaps Wiglaf can start be telling the answer to this question: does Wiglaf believe that those of us who deny the existence of his deity are more likely to suffer in hell for all eternity than those of us who don’t?
After Wiglaf shares his plain direct answer to that question (it’s a “yes” or “no” question), we can proceed with the “science” underlying Wiglaf’s odd claims.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 9, 2006 @ 8:47 pm
Well said, Amy. :o)
Comment by Dan — June 9, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
Steve Fuller’s dishonesty and incompetence and disgusting condensension are well-documented (search Google for “steve fuller liar” and have a field day!).
Not to mention the fact that this is why his testimony for the defense was such a boon for the plaintiffs at Dover.
Steve Fuller … master of the own goal!
Comment by Don Baccus — June 9, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
People– I really, really don’t want to have to make this blog moderated, but you do have to do a better job at abiding by our “rules of engagement”. Please.
Comment by Freawaru — June 9, 2006 @ 10:03 pm
Don,
And I am thankful that it is here for all to read, including my original definition of what I am saying when I claim there are people researching ID. Anyone who goes back and reads what I have typed will see that I am not claiming what you would like me to. I am claiming instrumentality, not that there are peer-reviewed articles showing evidence that a non-human intelligence was involved in the history of life. It’s a subtle, but real, nuance.
Dan,
I never claimed that philosophical discussions are on par with scientific research. When did I claim that? For some reason I don’t remember claiming that. Please point out to me where I did. That is so remote from anything I have said it cannot even be said to be a straw-man. I know that critics of ID are not accustomed to the distinctions that I use in my views on ID, it seems that this is where much of the confusion subsists.
Sal,
I highly agree on the potential of a technological victory for ID. That is precisely why I think understanding the instrumental dynamics of ID is crucial!
Hear, hear. I have a thought experiment regarding this (as a hypothetical, Dan, I have no intention of submitting a peer-reviewed paper on the topic). I often wonder if all of Mendelianism, including everything subsidiarily implicated through the field of genetics, could be given it’s own rightful domain. And if it could be treated as such, and if the well-established inherent dynamics of Mendelianism were treated independently and extracted from Darwinism, what would be left of evolutionary biology?
Interesting, could you provide us with articles or links for more details on this?
Don,
Like it or not, I distinguish between those who are inquiring about specific potential connections between ID and science (philosophical, as it were) and those who claim to be “scientifically researching” it.
Additionally, it seems like my use of the phrase “ID researcher” does not serve to conflate. The conjunction of the two (ID and researcher) implies an open inquiry. I doubt ID critics would concede that they are ID researchers. On the contrary, anyone opposed to ID who discusses it finds out (sometimes the hard way) that it is necessary to yell very loudly and repeatedly that they are not in support of intelligent design, in order to avoid a reactionary and defensive knee-jerk label (MacNeill is a perfect example here). The demarcations in the discussion of ID are clear enough to justify my definition and use of the phrase. I am fairly certain that everyone in the general discussion of ID gets my meaning.
PvM,
Good points about this blog.
Hello Dan,
I, in fact, can tell the difference between faith (that God does or does not exist), philosophy (that ID can be useful as a scientific instrumental), and science (the importance of peer-review, rigorous and repeatable results, etc).
It seem to me that you are the one who has trouble distinguishing between what I am claiming, and what you want me to claim. It seems like I will have to repeat I am not saying there are peer-reviewed articles showing evidence that a non-human intelligence was involved in the history of life.
Amy,
I will indulge your off-topic question. If I must consort with naïve yes-or-no questions about hell, I suppose I would have to superficially fit my answer into the No category.
You’re welcome to knock down some straw-men, but as far as I can tell you have absolutely no idea exactly what the content of my claims are.
Hear, hear.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 10, 2006 @ 12:03 am
Dekker makes clear he is doing neither.
’nuff said about your honesty.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 10, 2006 @ 12:22 am
Very amusing, Wiglaf.
You have four or five people here who read your sentences (written in English, if I’m not mistaken) and come to a reasonable conclusion about what those sentences mean and how do you respond?
In a nutshell: “None of you understand what I’m trying to say.”
It seems like I will have to repeat I am not saying there are peer-reviewed articles showing evidence that a non-human intelligence was involved in the history of life.
And it seems like we will have to repeat to you that when someone uses the phrase “ID researchers” it is very reasonable for a reader to ask, “Huh? So what experiments are these ID researchers doing and where are they publishing their results?”
You seem to be asking us to abide your sloppiness for the moment. “All will become clear” once you dump your philosophical mashup on us. Or so we are told. We only need to sit and wait for your plain words (”ID researcher”) to be filled with new meanings — very important and deep new meanings!
Yeah. Right.
If I must consort with naïve yes-or-no questions about hell, I suppose I would have to superficially fit my answer into the No category.
Ooops, you did it again! Just a few posts above I was scolded for “ad hominems” but now Wiglaf has dropped one into his own comment. Call the moderator! I am so terribly offended.
Seriously, what is “naive” about my question? No reasonable person can dispute that “intelligent design” is a key tool in Christian apologetics. It’s been admitted as such by key players in the “movement” (99.9% of whom are conservative evangelical Christians). The odds that you aren’t a Christian, Wiglaf, are one in a 100.
The odds that you are an ID-promoting Christian who sincerely believes that an atheist is just as likely to go to heaven as someone who believes in the resurrected Christ are one in a million.
Or you could just be lying to us. I’m not a gambling man. Guess where I’m placing my bet?
Someone wrote
In truth, when stripped of what little real science there is in evolutionary theory (such as the good parts of population genetics), evolutionary theory is a hindrance to real scientific exploration.
This bit of incomprehensible rubbish was praised by Wiglaf. Since we all live on planet earth, let’s take a step back and ask ourselves a simple question: if the theory that live on earth evolved from a common ancestor is mostly unscientific, then why is it that only those scientists who support the theory are capable of doing research and publishing that research in peer reviewed journals? And why has that research transformed the way scientists think and study living organism? Why is the data supporting that theory piled up in mountains while the papers which disparage the theory are virtually invisible?
Is it … a big conspiracy? You know, sort of like the conspiracy to keep the truth about the holocaust or AIDS hidden from everybody?
What do you think, Wiglaf? And try to cite some “evidence” which supports your answer. Good luck.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 10, 2006 @ 12:40 am
…Just checkin’ back to see if any surpising developments have occurred in the discussion…
Nope, Wiglaf’s lies continue.
Comment by Dan — June 10, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
I may not have been clear then. I am not saying that the blog itself is helping but rather that the blog is addressing issues of confusion by actual ID proponents, allowing one to show the problems with their arguments and help them come to realize the scientific vacuity of ID.
If we want to engage ID proponents, then blogs like these can be of great relevance. So I agree with most of what you have to say and I hope that I clarified my position.
Comment by PvM — June 10, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Let’s take a look at the definitions provided here, and consider that Dr. Dekker’s vitae says under the heading ‘Teaching’ and sub-heading ‘currently’:
“Lecture on ‘Evolution, chance and design’ in the course on Critical reflection on technology for honors track students at the TU Delft”
Given his credentials, what kind of activity is he undertaking in preparation to teach this honors seminar? I would guess he is not undertaking “loose, careless study.” I would venture to say that he is undertaking “close, careful study” and perhaps even “scholarly inquiry.” The floor is open. What do you think Don? Any input Dan?
Don and Amy,
Let’s recap:
I used a term. There were objections to my use of the term. I specify what I meant. Again there were objections to my definition, and so I’m dishonest. Very well, if “I don’t like his definition” is the same as “he’s dishonest,” then I suppose I am dishonest.
An ad hominem is a logically fallacious statement drawing attention to a person’s characteristics or situation that is not relevant to an argument. My statement drew attention to your question and not your person, and therefore my statement is not an ad hominem.
Again? Please point out to me where I made a statement drawing attention to a person’s characteristics or situation that is not relevant to an argument (the first or second time) and I will apologize for insulting whomever I improperly mounted a logically fallacious ad hominem against.
Your question is naïve because scholars have debated damnation for several millennia, with many different highly nuanced answers, contained within tomes so verbose as to be unreadable by most untrained people within one lifetime. Additionally, just about every form of religion and philosophy has a different view summarized in one tome-sized volume or another. Your question boils it down to a yes-or-no conclusion. In my opinion, it is a naïve question that attempts to boil the issue down to yes-or-no.
I provide an answer to your off-topic question, and you imply that I am a liar? I ask you the same question that I asked someone else earlier: If you think everything I have to say is worthless Christian drivel, why are you wasting your own time asking me?
When I do provide an answer to your question, I am either dishonest or a liar. Sounds like you’re wasting your time talking to me.
Sal already provided a link.
Comment by Wiglaf — June 11, 2006 @ 4:50 am
A silly claim lead to an even sillier followup. Come on guys lay it to rest. This was just a silly mistake, blame it all on Dembski and be done with it.
Comment by PvM — June 11, 2006 @ 5:32 am
I think that you’re digging yourself in deeper, and deeper. At least Dembski has the intelligence to flood his blog with multiple top posts to move embarassing threads off the front page when he screws up. You could learn from him.
Comment by Anonymous — June 11, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
If you think everything I have to say is worthless Christian drivel, why are you wasting your own time asking me?
A better question is: when it’s been demonstrated that everything your saying is Christian drivel and we all know it, why do you persist?
Of course, we know the answer to that question.
Please tell us how you explain the fact — the incontrovertible fact — that “intelligent design” is understood as worthless rubbish by nearly every biologist on the planet while Darwin’s contributions to biology are exalted.
Are the world’s scientists deluded after over a century of research? Or is it a conspiracy?
You keep trying to avoid this question. Show some respect for the evidence and answer the question.
Thanks.
Comment by Amy Lester — June 11, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
In the interim, Cornell Geneticist John Sanford wrote a devastating critique of naturalistic evolution
And here’s Sanford providing his thoughts on the age of the Earth and common descent of species, in particular between modern homo sapiens and earlier hominids.
Comment by ivy privy — June 11, 2006 @ 6:09 pm
Wiglaf,
Here are some links on systems biology:
http://telicthoughts.com/?p=175
http://pub.ucsf.edu/magazine/200408/systemsbiology.html
And the influx of engineers into biology should be something of a nightmare for traditional Darwinists because Engineers tend to be more ID friendly than traditional biologists. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis
It remains to be seen if my speculation has merit, but let me point out something George Marsden (expert witness, Mclean vs. Arkansas) said of creationist engineers something which might as well be applicable to ID engineers:
This is exactly the kind of epistemology and mindset which spells doom for Darwinian dogma and spell life for real scientific exploration.
Salvador
PS
Since this thread was about the role of critics and their classification and usefulness, I hope you’ve been getting some batting practice with these guys. I recommend the role of this weblog is to PRACTICE debate, not to win debate. Learn how to deal with red-herrings and misrepresentations, etc. Also, one of their tactics is to try to wear you down, waste your energy, get you upset, and get you to make intemperate comments. I think the role model for IDers is how Stephen Meyers calmly disposed of Peter Ward.
I would encourage you to engage PvM and Dan on technical matters. You’ll learn a lot about countering various rhetorical ploys which you might face in live debate. And remember, the anti-ID crowd has been sternly advised by the NCSE not to engage IDEA. How’s that for a vote of confidence!!!!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 13, 2006 @ 5:39 am
Only because they tend to be ignorant of biology …
If IDers weren’t trying to push their religion into the school curriculum no one would give a flying fig newton about ID.
Comment by Don Baccus — June 13, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
As usual Sal is guided more by wishful thinking and vacuous speculation that by fact. I wonder if Sal has heard of the term cognitive dissonance?
Evolutionary science is evolving from population dynamics to an integration with development making it an even more powerful concept in explaining life around us.
And what has ID contributed? So far Sal has done little to address the claim that ID is scientifically vacuous. In fact, I assert that Sal’s response (or should I say non-response) underlines the vacuity of design.
I am working on a series of postings discussing the concept of intelligent design at Pandasthumb. In my introduction I have described the problems I see with the design inference. In the next posting I will show that contrary to the expectations of IDers, random search is actually remarkably efficient in optimization and all this follows naturally from the NFL theorems.
In fact, there is an even more surprising outcome, which will need to wait until the various contributors have worked out the fine details, Needless to say, it will show, contrary to the claims by Dembski that the NFL theorems combined with the work of a theoretical mathematician shows that evolution is doomed to be successful. Perhaps we can move our concept of God to the No Free Lunch Theorems? It surely seems a better place than in the gaps of our ignorance…
Remember how IDers have argued that the NFL, the conservation of information (which is not about conservation after all) or the displacement theorems will show that evolutionary algorithms require additional information which requires some form of intelligence. While some already have shown how this claim fails to show that 1) the same problem does not apply to regular intelligence, in other words supernatural intelligence is needed and regular intelligence could not explain the existence of CSI or successful searches of large spaces 2) or more logically, the displacement theorems are flawed. Given the simple fact that random search is actually quite simple in optimizing, it should not come as too much of a surprise that the displacement theorems are based on flawed assumptions.
While not jello, if looks quite a bit like ‘flubber’.
So perhaps, in the mean time, Sal can explain to us why he believes that ID is scientifically relevant in a non-begging-the-question manner? And may I request that Sal supports his assertions, allowing us to determine how he reached his conclusions.
I have found that discussion with IDers can be quite successful in explaining how science works and what science can and cannot address. As a Christian myself, I realize how tempting it can be to assign to things we do not understand. Personally, I prefer to see God whereever I look, not just in the bacterial flagellum. I am sure that some apologetics may explain why God reveals Himself in the flagellum?
Comment by PvM — June 20, 2006 @ 3:37 am
Perhaps Sal can provide us with some examples to support his case? I agree that one will have to deal with red-herrings and other logical fallacies which is why I find the discussion about ID’s vacuity so revealing as I have yet to see an attempt to address the obvious lack of relevance to science.
Comment by PvM — June 20, 2006 @ 6:00 am
“This is an impressive book that is both professional and personal. It handles a wide range of topics, from cosmology and evolution to postmodernism and intellectual questions about Christianity. With this book as well as with the story of his own life, Schaefer compellingly demonstrates that, contrary to popular thinking, it is entirely well possible to be one person that is at the same time a dedicated scientist and a dedicated disciple of Jesus Christ. I have hardly ever read a book with ideas on the science/faith and evolution/creation debate that matches my own opinion so closely.”
- Cees Dekker, endorsing Henry F. Schaefer III’s book entitled, “Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?” (Henry Schaefer is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and a Fellow at ISCID.)
Source.
——————–
“I had an interesting conversation with Cees Dekker, a nanotechnologist in Delft and winner of the Spinoza Prize. He is a supporter of the ‘intelligent design’ body of thought.”
- Dutch Minister of Education Maria van der Hoeven.
Source.
——————–
Last Friday I went to a forum evening at my university about ‘Cosmology, Evolution and Intelligent Design’. It was supposed to be a discussion between three panel members, a moderator and the public (about 300 - 400 people I think) about the relation between these three concepts.
Unfortunately the only defender of Intelligent Design (ID) was one of the panel members, Cees Dekker.
- An eyewitness account by astronomy student Tijl Kindt of an event entitled, ‘Cosmology, Evolution and Intelligent Design.’
Source.
——————–
“The conference, Darwin and Design, was organized by Carole Thaxton and her husband, Charles Thaxton, chemist and co-author of the seminal origin-of-life monograph The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984). The Thaxtons lived in Prague for several years while Charles taught at Charles University.
Held in the capital’s Congress Centrum, a grand hall built in the Communist era, the Darwin and Design conference featured speakers from five countries, including Stephen C. Meyer (USA), Jonathan Wells (USA), Charles Thaxton (USA), David Berlinski (France), John C. Lennox (UK), Cees Dekker (The Netherlands), and Dalibor Krupka (Slovakia). The proceedings were chaired by Peter Verner, a Czech chemist.
Addresses in English were simultaneously translated into Czech, and the five main speakers (Meyer, Wells, Thaxton, Berlinski, and Lennox) provided written summaries in advance that were available in both English and Czech. Several of the speakers are fellows of the Center for Science and Culture, headquartered at Discovery Institute in Seattle.”
Source.
——————–
[Cees Dekker] starts his lecture with a brief introduction on Darwinism/evolution … He continues by stating that design can be assessed objectively by observation. Evidence for design is not limited to biology, but can also be found in cosmology. This is not a novel idea. For life like ours to become possible, a great amount of conditions have to be met accurately.
Source.
——————–
“Charles Thaxton, a biochemist who has taught at Charles University in Prague, and a fellow of the Discovery Institute, is the chief organizer of the conference. Thaxton wrote a seminal book on the theory of intelligent design titled, “The Mystery of Life’s Origins” in 1984. In addition to Meyer, Thaxton has arranged for notable European scientist Cees Dekker, a biophysics professor at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands, and John Lennox, an Oxford mathematician, to speak, along with Discovery Institute senior fellows David Berlinski (author of Infinite Ascent, Tour of the Calculus and Advent of the Algorithm), biochemist Michael Behe and biologist Jonathan Wells.”
Source.
——————–
“It turns out Van der Hoeven was influenced by “Cees Dekker, a renowned nanophysicist at Delft University of Technology who believes that the idea of design in nature is `almost inescapable’” (Enserink, 2005, p. 1394).”
Source.
——————–
Ellis Rubinstein, President of the New York Academy of Sciences, states:
“But what is truly disheartening is that some bonafide scientists give tacit or overt support to the Intelligent Design position. Take Cees Dekker, who Enserink describes as “a renowned nanophysicist at Delft University of Technology [and who participated in an Academy-sponsored event recently]. He believes the idea of design in nature is ‘almost inescapable.’ ”
Source.
——————–
“But in May, Cees Dekker, a physicist at the Delft University of Technology published a book on ID, and persuaded education minister Maria van der Hoeven that discussion of ID might promote dialogue between religious groups.”
Source.
——————–
“CEES DEKKER. Dutch scientist, molecular bio-physicist at the University of Deft. He recently published a volume entitled ‘’Unordinary luck or evident design?'’. In his book he collected ideas and concepts spread among many researchers who acknowledge how fragile Darwinism is. It seems, actually, that the universe (and man appearance) do not resemble at all to a lottery game, in which numbers are chosen by chance. Thus, proof of an ‘’intelligent presence” becomes more evident. Obviously , that book caused clamours among the promoters of Darwinism who obviously view as absurd even considering the existance of “mysterious intelligent entities”, “God”, “creation or creationism”, and so on.”
Source.
——————–
“Dekker says he’s puzzled by the outcry but chalks it up to a “Pavlov reaction” to ID. “Many scientists associate it with conservative Christians, Kansas, and George Bush–so it has to be bad,” he says. He hopes the debate will get more serious after the impending publication of a collection of 22 essays about ID and related themes, most of them by Dutch scientists, which he has co-edited. Van der Hoeven has agreed to receive the first copy of the book at a ceremony in The Hague next week.”
Source:
News of the Week
Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1394 , 3 June 2005
EVOLUTION POLITICS:
Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?
——————–
Cees Dekker, “Experimenten die ID kunnen aantonen” [Experiments that Could Demonstrate ID], bionieuws 11, 03-06-2005.
Source.
——————–
Cees Dekker et al., eds., Schitterend Ongeluk of Sporen van Ontwerp? [Brilliant Mishap or Traces of Design], Ten Have, Kampen, 2005.
Source.
——————–
“Currently teaching”…”Lecture on ‘Evolution, chance and design’ in the course on Critical reflection on technology
for honors track students at the TU Delft.
Source.
——————–
Dekker lectures on ID at a university, presents ID propositions at symposia in Europe, pals around with ID community members, edits an anthology on ID, talks up ID to the Dutch Minister of Education, writes ravingly favorable jacket endorsements for ID authors, writes articles about ID, and develops experiments that could demonstrate ID. He is at least an unofficial member of the ID community. If he’s not, can someone please tell me what he is, in fact, doing?
Comment by Wiglaf — July 5, 2006 @ 5:40 pm