Report #1 on Questions to Calvert

I think you're wasting your time. No matter what questions you ask, the answer is "It's nothing but turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down." It's a matter of faith, not logic, and minds closed that tightly can't be opened by mere facts.

It's not a waste of time. These people claim to be producing science, and complain that they're ignored or actively repressed. It's worth demonstrating that neither is true.

R

Yes, that's the important point. They say they want to be heard and claim that the mainstream science world won't listen, but when the mainstream world listens and critiques, they dismiss the criticism. Dembski is another clear example.

Also, of course I don't expect to convince Calvert of anything, but people who read about these exchanges then see what's going on - they see the lawyerly tactics.

I think, Jack, you missed a key question: Suppose ID research finally declares a phenomena designed without a reasonable doubt... so what? Get Calvert to detail for you how ID opens up new and exciting avenues of research after declaring something Designed. In particular, have him tell us how ensuing ID research would be substantively exclusive of or incompatible with mechanical/naturalistic hypotheses and theories. Or perhaps, Calvert is ready to declare ID as the final answer to everything that closes all avenues of scientific research permanently?

This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. Attaching merely a label to a phenomena does not a science make. What does the label inform us about the phenomena under investigation? Only in the light of what positive contributions ID can make does the rest of the interview really make any sense. Only by having Calvert explain to us how ID generates positive research, does it suddenly become clear that he has nothing substantive to offer other than the erroneous "It must not have evolved." In particular, I honestly don't care what specific ID facts Calvert has conjured up, I care about how he may conjure them. Say you even charitably grant him some hypothetical Design scenario. From the interview, can Calvert show us how to figure out how something was Designed? Can Calvert reveal how to determine when it was Designed? Can Calvert lay down a plan for searching who or what Designed it?

In effect Calvert's refrain "there is no current scientific answer" really is quite a nonsensical answer. No wonder he doesn't want to continue the interview. After all, ID proponents don't agree with Science as it is practiced today (cf. Meyer and Nelson). So what does it mean that an ID proponent has no "scientific answer"? Does it mean that they don't have any ID answers? or does it mean that they don't have any answers that we would recognize as science? or perhaps it means that since current science has no answers, ID is just playing a waiting game? Once again, in order to evaluate any potential ID responses meaningfully, we need a positive statement regarding the framework of ID research, not the specifics of ID results.

I think the AMNH debate is a good model for critics of ID to adopt. I believe it was Pennock who asked Behe and Dembski to teach him how to be a "Design Theorist." The exchange was memorable because of how Behe and Dembski fumbled with the question. Granted, Pennock was rather sarcastic in his application, but the underlying theme hits the nail on the head -- if you have a brand new methodology that only you alone know how to apply, what good is it? I'd hope the human race has evolved beyond deponding on shamans and rituals to divine the revelations of gods.

Combatting ID is hard work because contemporary biology is located far uphill of common sense. Like every kind of human thinking, ideas about living things began in fantasies that were emotionally gratifying and conveniently simple. Since people naturally revert to this default case, ID folks don't need to do very much in order to prevail.

This question ignores the fact that the inference of design is a very limited claim.

— Calvert

Christians will not be swayed by facts or logic. What part of "The Bible said it, I believe it, and my mind will never be opened" do you not understand? You might convince a few people who are on the fence, but the huge majority of Christians don't even listen. If you show them evidence of the fallibility of the Bible, they just (figuratively) close their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and begin humming. Religion, from my experience, has nothing to do with facts, and if you're truly religious, facts can, and should, be ignored. Thinking, reasoning humans aren't religious, but not all humans think and reason. Most politicians, however, are highly pragmatic, and if you can convince them that they will lose money by passing a law, you can prevent its passage. IMO, that's the way to deal with this issue.

We need to be concerned not only with the content, but also about the type of reasoning that "teaching the controversy" will promote. The sort of reasoning that Calvert himself illustrates in his replies is what I fear. This sort of reasoning is appropriate for rhetoric, but not for science. I classify it loosely as "sophomoric reasoning"

...can Calvert show us how to figure out how something was Designed?

— lurker

The sort of people who boost these ideas are either dishonest and cynical, fearful and therefore stubbornly ignorant, or a combination of all the above. Sloth can be added to any of these catagories in varying amounts, as can dashese of actual sincerity (but only in the youngest, or completely unsophisticated, inexperienced cases).

Years ago I began following this "debate" on the mainstream side, expecting to find a few fanatics, but more poorly informed people, generally of the "born-again" persuasion, and I wanted to understand them, and to have them at least comprehend what the TOE really was, and even why many non-scientists not only believe it to be accurate, but profoundly beautiful.
After many years and a number of forums, I have come to a conclusion matching the one I have realized in dealing with American politics: the opposition is organized by completely unscrupulous people, many ignorant of everything but there own vanity and greed, leading a flock of wantonly ignorant, fear-filled fools, however nice a great many of them are on their own, away from the LCD and face-to-face with another simple human like myself.

It's not cynicism I have, just a sort of baffled weariness.

Another thing that starts becoming clear: We need to get some real mathematicians and statisticians involved in running Dembski's numbers. Several years ago, in his first book as I recall, Dembski had proposed an equation that suggested that evolution was statistically difficult at best. Paul Lucas had the good sense to try a few numbers and made an interesting discovery: One of the key equations had assumed that each creature had only one offspring, so when n was substituted with 1, the odds against evolution were pretty high. But if one assumed 2 as n, the odds for evolution starting looking very good. And if one assumed 4 offspring, the odds tipped in favor of evolution. If one assumed anything more than 4, the odds became almost certainty in favor of evolution.

I watched Dembski and Nelson (and Bohlin from Probe Ministries) yesterday at a presentation sponsored by a local religious group, and I was struck with their relative unfamiliarity with real biology. Bohlin trotted out the old saw about a guide in the Galapagos claiming only "God and Peter Grant can tell the difference between species of finch" in the archipelago (I wondered whether Bohlin intended to flatter Grant, or God, but I digress). Bohlin appears not to be much of an ornithologist nor even a casual reader of any bird guide. In answering a question about just what a "novel" body plan might be, Nelson mentioned bats, and then agreed under questioning that bats have nothing neally novel, different from humans.

But I'm equally at sea in statistics and math, and I suspect others are, too. These guys get by making fantastic and sometimes stupid claims about biology in most audiences because most audience members are not familiar with real biology.

In short, we need to check the numbers, especially any mathematics that IDists propose. Teach the facts first, check the numbers.

To a know nothing like Bill comes across as a tiger on paper but a mouse at the lectern. I have seen him on a TV debate with Eugenie Scott and Catholic priest (taped by I don't know who). Bill looked as comfortable as one would be betetween a rock and a hard place. In a bout 5 minutes Scott had him almost blabbering about his science and soo after the Catholic minister had him beaten all ends up on religion. Bill D is best among fawning admirers where there is no accountability. In the Xripts of his debates with Ken Miller, he actually sounds very defensive. The very fact that Bill D is leading a charge against modern biology from the bully pulpit indicates that there is no scientific controversy whatsoever about the subject.