Challenge Accepted

What about Dr. Jonathan Wells?

Of the ID bright lights, probably only Michael Behe might be certified as an "old Earther." With Dembski's current appointment at a seminary in Kentucky, I don't expect that he will rush to defend Big Bang cosmology and Lyellian/Sedgwickian geology (it would be a pleasant surprise if he would).

Crowther's degree is in creative writing, is it not?

I wonder: Is there a Boy Scout among the ID folk? Is there any chance there is an Eagle Scout among them? I don't think they could say some of the things they say, were they to try to live by the Scout Law.

I thought about including Wells in the "artfully ambiguous" set that Johnson is in. In a 2001 interview that I came across, Wells stated that he hasn't "seen the evidence" for YEC, which I take to mean that he just plum doesn't know. (As if it's such a hard thing to figure out). More recently, he's said that he's become skeptical of the age of the Earth because he just can't trust those lying scientists anymore. Couldn't find the source for that though. However, I'm not sure that Wells hasn't stated elsewhere that he's an old-Eather, so I just skipped it.

I found an interesting piece by J.P. Moreland (taken from a Q&A session) in which he seems to defend an old Earth -- it was posted on Reasons to Believe, which is an OEC outfit -- but in the whole thing he never comes out and says that he adheres to an old Earth. Why not just say, "I think the evidence supports and old Earth." How hard is that? Instead he meanders around with Biblical issues and how certain respectable authorities interpret the days of Genesis differently, etc. He's hanging really close to the ambiguous faction as well.

Dembski, on the other hand, has stated more or less directly that he is an old-Earther. It's possible that he's being disengenuous, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. It would be easy enough for him to join Team Ambiguity™ just like Johnson and Wells.

Crowther: by mistakenly equating design theorists with other non-scientific anti-evolutionists

It's ludicrous to try and demean design theory by mistakenly equating design theorists with non-scientific anti-evolutionists.

In his letter, Alberts criticizes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, as being representative of the "common tactic" of misrepresenting scientists' comments to cast doubts on evolution. Behe calls this "outrageous," saying he simply points out that even establishment scientists note the complexity of biological structures.

It's this dishonesty of the ID crowd that bugs me no end. They have one face for the choir and another for the mainstream. They say it's not a religious issue, but the vast majority of their works are published by religious publishers. They disavow YEC when it makes them look silly and happily share conference podiums with Gish-ites and welcome them as "respected allies". And then they demand that they be taken seriously.

Alert reader Dave Thomas answered my challenge by pointing out that design proponents Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds have no trouble with young earth viewpoints. Though it should be pointed out that this does indicate that what they've endorsed is more research and they have not been dogmatic about this point.

Philosopher J.P. Moreland expresses some sympathy for the young-Earth view, so only engineering professor Walter Bradley is totally firm in his old-Earth creationist view.

Babinski: According to what Paul has told me and in his contribution to the book, THREE VIEW OF CREATION, Paul no longer even bothers to QUESTION his young-earth views! He in fact, freely admits that the evidence APPEARS to favor an old earth. Here's how he maintains his cognitive dissonance: Paul believes that the resurrection of Christ is an historical fact, and argues that IF a man can indeed rise from the dead, as he believes can be proven historically (sic), THEN anything can happen, even a whole cosmos that appears by all the scientific evidence to be ancient, can be very very young. So, via a theological bridge of "logic" hanging by mere skyhooks,

It's ludicrous to try and demean design theory by mistakenly equating design theorists with [other] non-scientific anti-evolutionists.

Why should we adopt recent creationism over an old earth model? We think that this question is much less important. At the moment, with both Christian and secular educational systems beset by naturalism, a truce is in order. The old earth creationist is an ally against both the theistic naturalism limiting the free flow of ideas inside the church and the secular naturalism cutting off new thinking in the universities. There are, however, two very good reasons to maintain a young earth position during the struggle.

Recent creationism must develop better scientific accounts if it is to remain viable against old earth creationism. On the other hand, the reading of Scripture (e.g., a real Flood, meaningful genealogies, an actual dividing of languages) is so natural that it seems worth saving. Since we believe recent creation cosmologies are improving, we are encouraged to continue the effort.

Our advice, therefore, is to leave the issues of biblical chronology and history to a saner period. Christians should unite in rooting out the tedious and unfruitful grip of naturalism, methodological and otherwise, on learning. At this moment in history, we need not be concerned with differences between advocates of intelligent design on such issues. Our reviewers are not comfortable with young earth creationism in its current state of development. We do not blame them for this discomfort. They seem willing to allow for an opportunity at a more robust theory on the part of those "young earthers" willing to make the attempt. We are thankful for this tolerance. Our agreements with our reviewers far outweigh the importance of our disagreements.

I (Adam) also asked whether he accepted common descent and whether he believed humans and apes have a common ancestor. Again, his answer to this was vague. He said that he reads Genesis 1-11 allegorically, but on the other hand, that he "wasn't taken with" the idea of "transmutation" and that he'd "be happy with" the idea that the first pair of humans was specially created. Ultimately, however, he said he simply didn't know, that it wasn't his area of expertise. He did indicate that he rejected Behe's vague ideas about a first cell being front-loaded with all the genetic information of life.

For as much as they say that they dislike being lumped together with YECs, IDers do precious little to either argue against YEC claims or defend what they view as legitimate in evolutionary theory.

Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds have no trouble with young earth viewpoints.

Does anyone have thoughts on the T Rex soft tissue discovery?

Someone will post about the T-rex thing tomorrow. For now, please don't drag this thread off-topic.

Sorry about that...I understand the mistake and won't repeat it.

It's this dishonesty of the ID crowd that bugs me no end. They have one face for the choir and another for the mainstream. They say it's not a religious issue, but the vast majority of their works are published by religious publishers. They disavow YEC when it makes them look silly and happily share conference podiums with Gish-ites and welcome them as "respected allies". And then they demand that they be taken seriously.

Teachers feel pressed to teach creationism

Arlington, VA, Mar. 24 (UPI) -- A new U.S. survey has found about one third of science teachers feel pressured to present creationism and other non-scientific alternatives to evolution.

Of the more than 1,050 teachers who participated in the National Science Teachers Association survey, 31 percent said they felt pressured by either students or parents when teaching evolution to include creationism, intelligent design and other concepts that are not supported as valid scientific theories. Only 5 percent or less said they felt the pressure was being exerted by school administrators or principals.

"Something is not right when science educators feel pressure to teach a variety of religious or non-science viewpoints. It's not fair to our students to give them anything less than good science," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA executive director.

A debate over teaching evolution has sprung up in several localities recently, most notably in Dover, Pa., which last year became the first district in the nation to require presenting information about intelligent design -- the concept that life is so complicated an intelligent designer must have been involved.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several parents have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the curriculum and a hearing has been scheduled for September.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/[20050324-031417-7829r].htm (remove brackets)

People of differing theological views should learn who's close to them, form alliances, and put aside divisive issues 'til later. I say after we've settled the issue of a Creator, we'll have a wonderful time arguing about the age of the Earth. (Christianity Today, 42(5):24; quoted in Pennock's Creationism and Intelligent Design)

Didn't Stephen Meyer have to sign a YEC statement of faith to join Palm Beach University (or whatever affialiation he listed in PBSW)?

Dembski is evasive as ever when it comes to YEC - not surprising at all in keeping with just about everything he writes. Here is his latest opinion on the scientific validity of YEC, http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm

I don't want to run the risk of a copyright violation notice from Bill so I am paraphrasing a few lines from yet another pseudoscientific tract of his. Bill starts off saying that he does not agree with the timeline of YEC or their literal interpretation of the Genesis and then goes on to deliver what is surely the most breathtaking instance of equivocation yet from the ID crowd. Bill stating that his disagreements with the YEC crowd is less than that with the "Darwinist" types goes on to add that while YEC is off only by a few years abotu the age of the earth etc., "Darwinism" is off by several orders of magnitude with regard to origins and evolution. Bill is ignoring the tomes that have been written efuting and utterly dismantiling the arguments of YEC and worse still is ignoring the fact that in Edwards not a single YEC expert was willing to testify that YEC is a scientific theory.

I should have said: Name one prominent ID proponent who has ever proposed that the Big Bang concept be removed from science classrooms.

Berlinski, David (1998). Was There a Big Bang? Commentary, 105(2), February 1998.

Like Darwin's theory of evolution, Big Bang cosmology has undergone that curious social process in which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular myth. The two theories serve as points of certainty in an intellectual culture that is otherwise disposed to give the benefit of the doubt to doubt itself. It is within the mirror of these myths that we have come to see ourselves. But if the promotion of theory into myth satisfies one human agenda, it violates another. Myths are quite typically false, and science is concerned with truth. Human beings, it would seem, may make scientific theories or they may make myths, but with respect to the same aspects of experience, they cannot quite do both.

Perhaps it is relevant in the context of Crowther's very flexible thesis and its discussion to recall that Phillip Johnson is an active participant in the "HIV is not the cause of AID" crowd.

Generally, I think most of the ID advocates just hate all of science but for diplomatic reasons try to conceal their aversion to science which, after all, is based on "methodological naturalism" and the latter, according to Dembski (in his article in Mere Creation anthology) is as pernicious as the methaphysical naturalism and equally deserves to be destroyed. In view of that, Crowther's attempt to prove the difference between "other" non-scientific creationists and the ID champions is pathetic. The guy has not done his homework and is now deep in dreck, so it is funny to watch his convulsions as he tries to make a good mien at a losing game.

(1)The letter [from the NAS] singles out for criticism people who don't believe in the big bang, that the earth is older than 10,000 years a [sic] plate tectonics. Please. (2)I challenge you to find a serious, leading intellectual ID proponent who does not subscribe to the big bang or does not believe the earth is billions of years old.

Name one prominent ID proponent who has ever proposed that the Big Bang concept be removed from science classrooms.

(1)The letter [from the NAS] singles out for criticism people who don't believe in the big bang, that the earth is older than 10,000 years a [sic] plate tectonics. Please. (2) Name one prominent ID proponent who has ever proposed that the Big Bang concept be removed from science classrooms.

Bill stating that his disagreements with the YEC crowd is less than that with the "Darwinist" types goes on to add that while YEC is off only by a few years abotu the age of the earth etc., "Darwinism" is off by several orders of magnitude with regard to origins and evolution.

— shiva

What is Crowther's email (yes I'm just that lazy!)?

I would really like to send him an email similar to the following draft:

You [Crowther] wrote, "It's ludicrous to try and demean design theory by mistakenly equating design theorists with other non-scientific anti-evolutionists."

Am I to understand that other non-evolutionary, non-ID theories are not science? What is you opinion/reaction to scientists like Jonathon Sarfati of AiG? He has a PhD in science and uses scientific language in his YEC arguments. How is his use of science to support his theory and different than Behe's PhD in science, and his use of scientific language for old Earth ID?

How does one person's use of science to back up their theory (OEC vs. YEC) make that theory non-scientific, when another person's use of science to back up their theory make it scientific?

I would like to see Crowther's response to the idea that "scientists" can use "science" in their arguments, and in one case that makes the argument scientific, but in the other, it is not...

On page 28 of the collection of articles Mere Creation (InterVarsity Press, 1998) edited by William A. Dembski, in the article by Dembski titled "Introduction: Mere Creation" we read: " . . . once science is taken as the only universally valid form of knowledge within a culture, it follows that methodological and metaphysical naturalism become functionally equivalent. What needs to be done, therefore, is to break the grip of naturalism in both guises, methodological and metaphysical."
Crowther may quote the above as an argument in favor of his assertion that ID crowd repects science. With ID guys's uncanny talents to spin everything in their favor (as Johnson did claiming that S. J. Gould's severe critique of Darwin on Trial "elated him") the above can be construed by them as a proof they respect "genuine" science.

Generally, I think most of the ID advocates just hate all of science ....

— Mark Perakh

Dembski: "If you will, young earth creationism is at worst off by a few orders of magnitude in misestimating the age of the earth." Steve Reuland: A few orders of magnitude? Try 6.

Steve, try to remember, this is the guy who calculated the probability of the formation of a flagellum, given the parts are already present, to be 4.5 x 10^-234. 6 orders is nothing. On a good day, his calculations might be off in the double-digit order range.

— Matt Inlay

There is a discrepancy between the result which Dembski reports for his example calculation of an M/N ratio on p.297 and what the Finite Improbability Calculator reports. Plug in symbols=30, length=1000, tolerance=0.1, and identity=0.2 and the result comes out as 5.555117e-223, whereas Dembski reports 10^-288, or a factor of 10^-65 off. Jeff Shallit noted this error in Dembski's text some time back. Finite Improbability Calculator

Didn't Stephen Meyer have to sign a YEC statement of faith to join Palm Beach University (or whatever affialiation he listed in PBSW)?

To assure the perpetuation of these basic concepts of its founders, it is resolved that all those who become associated with Palm Beach Atlantic as trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God; [...] PBU Guiding Statement

But Kenneth Miller, who co-authored with Joseph Levine Biology, the best-selling biology textbook in the country and the one used in Dover, is one of the most vocal critics of "Pandas." He said the book's hedging on the age of Earth is like teaching U.S. history but refusing to tell students the dates of the Revolutionary War.

— Laurie Lebo

Thanx, Nick, for the correction.

It's worth pointing out that the YECs have big problems with the big bang as well as the age of the earth.

It would be simple for the Discovery Institute to separate Intelligent Design from Young-Earth Creationism. A simple statement, something like: "The evidence for an old earth is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. The Young-Earth view is pernicious nonsense and a living testament to the human capacity for self-delusion in the service of fundamentalist religion. Teaching this form of flagrant pseudoscience in schools is akin to teaching geocentrism or a flat earth, an active mis-education of students that we strongly oppose. We in the ID movement realize that ID is controversial and will require decades of the hard work of hypothesis building and testing to ever have a chance of convincing the scientific community. Any association between ID and YEC discredits our attempts to open science to ID and makes this job impossibly more difficult, for the simple reason that YEC is at odds with all of the relevant scientific facts. We also know that YEC has proven a significant barrier preventing many well-educated people from carefully considering Christianity, and thus YEC undermines our goals for cultural as well as scientific renewal. YECs have every right to promote their views in the public sphere, but they should not expect any help from ID."

Hugh Ross, the Old-Earth Creationist of Reasons to Believe, has more-or-less said all of the above, although not in quite so blunt a fashion. However, as a result he has earned the deep enmity of the Young-Earthers.

So, I won't be holding my breath to see the above statement anytime soon...

It's worth pointing out that the YECs have big problems with the big bang as well as the age of the earth.

It would be simple for the Discovery Institute to separate Intelligent Design from Young-Earth Creationism. A simple statement, something like: "The evidence for an old earth is clear, convincing, and overwhelming. The Young-Earth view is pernicious nonsense and a living testament to the human capacity for self-delusion in the service of fundamentalist religion. Teaching this form of flagrant pseudoscience in schools is akin to teaching geocentrism or a flat earth, an active mis-education of students that we strongly oppose. We in the ID movement realize that ID is controversial and will require decades of the hard work of hypothesis building and testing to ever have a chance of convincing the scientific community. Any association between ID and YEC discredits our attempts to open science to ID and makes this job impossibly more difficult, for the simple reason that YEC is at odds with all of the relevant scientific facts. We also know that YEC has proven a significant barrier preventing many well-educated people from carefully considering Christianity, and thus YEC undermines our goals for cultural as well as scientific renewal. YECs have every right to promote their views in the public sphere, but they should not expect any help from ID."

Hugh Ross, the Old-Earth Creationist of Reasons to Believe, has more-or-less said all of the above, although not in quite so blunt a fashion. However, as a result he has earned the deep enmity of the Young-Earthers.

So, I won't be holding my breath to see the above statement anytime soon...

In his letter, Alberts criticizes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, a leading proponent of intelligent design, as being representative of the "common tactic" of misrepresenting scientists' comments to cast doubts on evolution. Behe calls this "outrageous," saying he simply points out that even establishment scientists note the complexity of biological structures.

The ID advocates are, in this analogy, in the position of saying that some of their members believe in a four-hour-ago Revolutionary War, others do not, but that they need not take a firm stance on this particular issue in history.

The notion of front loading in a primeval organism or cell is certainly not original with Behe.

"Evolution may be regarded as an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present." William Bateson, Nature, Volume 93: 635-642, 1914.

Pierre Grasse also recognized the role of internal forces.

"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective observer,...
Grasse page 210

I have since extended this notion by supporting it with both indirect and direct evidence in the paper "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypthesis." Rivista di Biologia (in press)

As for Intellgent design, my own feeling is that Dembski and Behe both have made a strategic error by presenting ID as something subject to debate. I regard it as a given requisite for all of both ontogeny and phylogeny. Chance has never played any role in either process and allelic mutations are anti-evolutionary as are both natural and artificial selection.

In short, the entire Darwinian scenario is a myth with no foundation in either experiment or the revelations of the fossil record. It should have been abandoned at its inception. Actually it was by St George Jackson Mivart in Darwin's own day and was subsequently, in roughly chonological order, by Louis Agassiz, Robert Owen, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Leo S. Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse and myself. I am sure I left out several others.

Every tangible bit of real concrete evidence pleads that evolution, like development of the individual from the egg, was a front-loaded process which proceeded by the ordered derepression of a huge store of preformed information. Both processes have occurred independently of environmental influence and both are part of the same organic continuum. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence that macroevolution is even occurring any more. We observe only rampant extinction. We should be more concerned.

There now, I feel somewhat better. Thank you for probably not listening.

John A. Davison

Thank you for probably not listening.

— John A. Davison

Steve Reuland

I was operating under the assumption that Panda's Thumb was interested in the subject of evolution, not the personalities and foibles of those individuals with which this thread is so obsessed. I couldn't care less what Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Ross or anyone else thinks about Intelligent Design. I am only interested in what experiment and the fossil record demonstrate with certainty.

Sorry to have intruded into your revealing discussion. I will try not to do it again.

John A. Davison

Davison--

Obviously we're interested in evolution, but we're also interested in creationism, what with the heavy-handed politicking of its proponents and all. You may have noticed that we post stuff about new (as well as old) developments in evolution, but we also post about what the creationists are up to. If that bores you, feel free to skip over those posts.

I understand you've got your own ideas about evolution which you feel very strongly about, and that it would be a complete waste of time to try to convince you that they are horribly off-base. No problem. All I ask is that you display a little common courtesy and limit your advocacy to those threads in which your ideas have something to do with the topic at hand.

You heard me. I will not do it again. Have a nice groupthink.

I was operating under the assumption that Panda's Thumb was interested in the subject of evolution, not the personalities and foibles of those individuals with which this thread is so obsessed. I couldn't care less what Johnson, Dembski, Behe, Ross or anyone else thinks about Intelligent Design. I am only interested in what experiment and the fossil record demonstrate with certainty.

ID is self evident to any rational observer. I hope that answers your question. I speak only for myself and those sources who have most influenced me. I am only a retired general physiologist but I have long ago recognized that evolution, a phemomenon of the past, is an indeniable reality that will never be explained with any paradigm that relies on chance. So much for Darwinism.

Your question is a good one and I doubt if I can stop the natural tendency to gravitate to that with which one has been thoroughly indoctrinated, often early in life, and which accordingly tends to alter ones perspective from that time forth.

We are all victims in the long run. Some of are luckier than others in the evolutionary prescribed scenario.

John A. Davison, too tired to continue with the ususal monologue to which no one listens anyway.