A plea to science journalists

I wrote to the WaPo ombudsman, letting him know that I thought that WaPo has been suckered. The best I hope for, and the least I expect of real news organizations, is that they assign people who cannot be led by a good argument that has nothing to do with science. Johnson is a good lawyer, we need to keep that in mind. He is not a scientist, nor is he very conversant in science, we need journalists to keep that in mind.

GWW's obscene comment was deleted and his IP banned. Have a nice day.

Darwin on Trial, the book by Phillip Johnson which founded the neocreationist movement of "intelligent design", was written in 1991. I first encountered it in 1996. At the time I knew nothing at all about creationism. A friend-like me, a serious Christian as well as a scientist---suggested that I take a look at it, and I was curious enough to do so. There are certainly things about the book which I applauded, at the time. I've always been irritated by pop-science works which try to make statements about God (or the lack thereof) as though these statements are supported by scientific fact, and I was glad to see someone taking on Richard Dawkins. But even without much training (I had only a B.A. in biology), while reading through Johnson's book I began to notice some puzzling things. At first, they were quite small: a claim in one place which contradicted a different claim in another. A strange lapse of logic-perhaps excusable on account of the author's inexpertise? Statements which didn't fit with what I knew firsthand about science and scientists. I was naive. I assumed that a Christian writing to other Christians would provide a scrupulously fair and accurate account of the facts. But the deeper I got into Darwin on Trial, the less naive I became. And the clearer it became that the driving force behind Johnson's book was neither fairness nor accuracy. A few years passed with this troubling thought at the back of my mind. I entered graduate school and started doing real science myself. And, the more I learned, the less I trusted Darwin on Trial. I finally challenged myself to put my mistrust to the test. Perhaps Johnson was merely confused about some things. What I should do, I told myself, is look at the sources he actually used in writing Darwin on Trial, and see what they say. Perhaps part of what Johnson says is accurate; perhaps his sources misled him in places. So I went to the campus library and started checking his claims. I was a lot less naive when I finished that task. I found that almost every scientific source cited by Johnson had been misused or distorted, in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction. The more closely I examined Darwin on Trial, the more inaccuracies I found, until it became almost impossible to catalogue all of the misleading statements in Johnson's work. This book-upon which the "intelligent design" movement is trying to hang a program of social reform and public education-is perhaps the ugliest and most deceptive book I have ever seen. It may seem irrelevant to critique a book over a decade since it was published. But Darwin on Trial was the work which founded the "intelligent design" movement, and Phillip Johnson is still regarded as the "godfather" of that entire school of thought. Later "intelligent design" creationists have adopted many of his exact arguments, as well as many of the questionable tactics and strategies used in Darwin on Trial. Perhaps most importantly, nobody in the "intelligent design" movement has, to my knowledge, ever criticized or disavowed any of the claims in Darwin on Trial. As I will show, this book is so full of questionable tactics that it would be hard for any informed reader not to notice any of the inaccuracy. All of the stars of the "intelligent design" movement, by their silent approval of these tactics, stand under a cloud of suspicion at the very least. Many Christians have welcomed the "intelligent design" creationists in the belief that they are fighting for God and truth. But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980's should remind us, there are some more unsavory reasons for seeking celebrity in the Christian community: money, fame, applause, or power, especially political power. In short, there are a wealth of reasons why Christians need to be careful about trusting the stars of the "intelligent design" movement. And even well-intentioned debaters, if they let their desire to win the argument outstrip their respect for the facts, will turn out a product which is grossly misleading. Integrity is important. If---as I will show in this essay---the claims of "intelligent design" are more a product of debating tactics and tricks than they are a fair and honest presentation, Christians need to seriously consider whether they can support this movement in good faith.Brian Spitzer, TalkDesign.org

Is there any way we could get more science journalists to check in here periodically?

I'm thinking back to a suggestion that Ed Darrel passed to me about getting free membership in scientific societies to teachers, and wondering if the same thing might be of value to journalists as well?

Journalists always like comps, and a free membership in a scientific society gives them "street cred" to write about science too.

OT:

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started? If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

er, shorten "science journalists" to just, "journalists"

in brian's article:

"But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980's should remind us..."

lol. indeed; how short our collective memory is.

Jim Bakker is back on TV with his own ministry again.

*sigh*

"If Johnson's argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too."

Yes, just so. Everyone should recognize this! Students of history should recognize that this sort of thing has happened before, repeatedly.

How does the Discovery Institute "systematically harass journalists?" I'm very interested in this statement; I'm not trying to attack you with the question, I just want to know. It sounds like something that should be backed up. The Bush Administration has systematically harassed and intimidated journalists and even replaced them with frauds, but such a statement is most powerful when supported by specific examples (they abound) and contrasted to the Clinton administration (not so sure of that second part). Please, if you can support this statement about the DI, do so!

Just keep talking, Phil! The more the better.

"I realized . . . that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution."

Just keep talking, Phil!  The more the better.  Consider branching out to explaining how other modern sciences such as meteorology, medicine, and geology (all of them thoroughly relying on natural processes) are also making "Christian metaphysics and religious belief" a "fantasy." 

Does it make any more sense to challenge Darwin than to contest Newton's theory of gravity? You haven't seen Phillip Johnson floating into the stratosphere recently, have you?

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

— Arun Gupta

Speaking of journalism, Tom Tomorrow has something to say that might be of interest to Thumbsters. (Once again, I'm not sure whether you need a Salon subscription)

Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you're using naturalistic terms, I'll agree with that.

— Phillip Johnson

perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

— Not Listening

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started? If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

Powell: What do you think of evolutionary biology? Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal. Powell: What about HIV/AIDS science? Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal. Powell: Thanks Phil. We're done here.

Big Phil's position on the age of the earth is so jaw droppingly intellectually dishonest it never fails to amaze. As if the age of the earth, and tied up with this the nature of the fossil record, isn't relevant to discussions of evolution!

The man is a fraud.

Meteorology, medicine and geology do not undermine Christian metaphysics; they can be accomodated in a reading of the Bible

If Johnson's argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.

but it['s] obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

Frank,

Can you follow an argument? Your fatuous comment, where you ask me to demonstrate something that I did not assert, suggests that you cannot. My point had nothing to do with the correctness of the assertion that evolution promotes atheism, it had only to do with Nick's incorrect argument that it "must follow.."

If you had asked: please explain how one could, self-consistently, claim that the common ancestry of living beings promotes atheism, while the fact that a tornado touched down 100 ft from my children's school does not--Then it would have demonstrated that you actually read my comment, and I would have been happy to respond.

it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator...

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

— David Heddle

Exodus 10:13 So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts; Numbers 11:31 Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them [ Or They flew ] down all around the camp to about three feet [ Hebrew two cubits (about 1 meter) ] above the ground, as far as a day's walk in any direction. Isaiah 11:15 The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. [ Hebrew the River ] He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals. Jeremiah 4:12 a wind too strong for that comes from me. [ Or comes at my command ] Now I pronounce my judgments against them." Jeremiah 10:13 When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses. Ezekiel 13:13 " 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury. Hosea 13:15 even though he thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures. Amos 4:13 He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth--- the LORD God Almighty is his name. Jonah 1:4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. Jonah 4:8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, "It would be better for me to die than to live." Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet. Zechariah 10:1 [ The LORD Will Care for Judah ] Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone. Mark 4:39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm. Luke 8:25 He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. "Where is your faith?" he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him."

GCT wrote -

"It might undermine the idea that God has a Plan for Humans, or that we are some sort of special creation or the end result of a plan, but it does not say anything about God's plan for the universe or any Purpose." (Referring to the theory of evolution.)

Actually, the theory of evolution does not in any way, shape, or form undermine that idea that God has a special plan for humans, either, nor that God intended the creation of humans, nor that humans are in God's image. It is utterly unrelated to this question. So is every other scientific theory.

Those who wish to believe in God, but cannot find true faith, demand miracles or "proof" of God's existence. They feel threatened by scientific explanations of anything, but especially of the cosmos or the evolution of the human physical body. This is because once science explains something, it is harder for them to use that particular physical phenomenon as a crutch to "prove" the existence of God to themselves. Because their own insecurities are irrationally exacerbated by science, they falsely claim that science is related to "secular humanism", various dictatorial political systems (note that this a direct contradiction of saying that it is related to humanism), "materialism", "atheism", "cultural decline", or whatever else they can come up with to express their own tormenting doubts and insecurities with regard to their own relationship to God. All of this is nonsense. Science is compatible with secular humanism, but equally so with Lutheranism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc.

Another motivation of the anti-science crowd is simply the sadistic desire to "force" other people to claim to "believe" something that they don't believe, as was done in the inquistion, and yet another is the silly urge to prove to themselves that they are "even smarter than scientists" (a lot of that is seen on this board, and it, too, reflects insecurity). However, it's the doubt and torment that sell the books.

We are in a phase of American history in which open admission of spiritual seeking or questioning is severely criticized, and hypocritical religious show (coupled to a secret life of sexual misbehavior, substance abuse, and financial dishonesty, in many if not most cases) is the norm.

Phillip Johnson's MO wherein he systematically distorts the views of his opponents, misquotes, makes false statements, etc, has thoroughly been documented at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm by a writer who himself is a devout Christian.

GCT: Phillip Johnson wrote: "Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you're using naturalistic terms, I'll agree with that." Yeah, he agrees with us. Can we all go home now?

Philip Johnson: Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life [...], I'll agree with that.

Hey Dave Heddle, what's your Second Denial¹? ID Creationists usually have a Second Denial². What's yours?

OK, wait, let's think about the Johnson/Gupta position that (undirected) evolution leads inexorably to a purposeless humanity/universe and the destruction of Christianity's facade.

I've heard variations on this argument for years, but I've never heard any Chrisitan apologist explain the consequences to faith itself if it can be objectively proven that the universe has a purpose. I thought the definition of faith was belief *in the absence of proof*. If God left fingerprints, then discovering them (finding such proof) would destroy the need for faith. Conversely, a God who wanted his chosen people to have faith would have hidden his agenda by making it appear random.

WRE -

"A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for "storm" and "wind", I found the following references:"

I'm not sure what your point is. It looks as if you've turned the usual tables, and presented a straw man version of Bible. Your implication seems to be that the Bible compels Christians (and Jews, since your quotes are mainly Old Testament) to believe that ALL WEATHER IS ALWAYS MAGICALLY CREATED BY GOD'S DIRECT ACTION. If that isn't your point, could you clear it up?

A fair number of people who subscribe to philosophical views such as atheism spend inordinate amounts of time trying to argue that belief in God "compels" people to reject scientific reality. This is no more true when they say it, than when ID/creationists say it. Such arguments do nothing more than fulfill the fantasies of the ID crowd, reframing a debate on science into an endless battle between dueling philosophies.

"In God's image" does not mean four limbs, blue/brown eyes, a navel, and twenty digits, to pick a few examples.

PaulP,

You and Frank must have gone to school together. I did not assert that evolution precludes the possibility of a creator. I wrote: "it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism"

This statement is manifestly true, since at least Johnson proves that can indeed believe that evolution promotes atheism.

Geez Louise. Once again boys and girls: If one believes that evolution promotes atheism, the laws of logic do not require that one also believes that meteorology also promotes atheism, as Nick's comment implied.

Ed Darrell:

This has nothing to do with your colleagues on the anti-cosmological ID front, the YECs. Why did you bring them up? It simply says that someone could believe that evolution (in its full glory, not theistic evolution) promotes atheism. They could even bring up a similar argument that I see on PT: you guys point out, and treat as significant, the obvious positive correlation between ID and theism, in spite of those IDers you characterize as "token" atheists. The flip side: there is a positive correlation between supporting evolution (in its full glory) and being an atheist, in spite of the fact that you guys have some token theists.

That's not my argument, but it could be someone's. That same person might argue there is no correlation between meteorology and atheism. Or better yet, physics, where in my experience there is a positive correlation with some sort of theism, and conclude that physics does not promote atheism.

That's all I am saying. One could hold those positions, regardless of their correctness, in an obvious self-consistent way. Nick was wrong.

Wesley,

You are being silly, as usual. The bible references are irrelevant. Some are metaphors (you know what that means, I hope?) Even bible literalists know that the dust on God's feet are not actual clouds. They have nothing to do with the weather. The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

Anyone who is a theist and a scientist must (and this really is a must, unlike Nick's) acknowledge that God can act in a supernatural way--and that all we can do is study the science. For if you do not believe that God can act in a supernatural way, then you are not really a theist.

Steve,

My second denial is that you know anything about science and probability.

This statement is manifestly true, since at least Johnson proves that can indeed believe that evolution promotes atheism.

Wesley, You are being silly, as usual.

— David Heddle

The bible references are irrelevant.

— David Heddle

Some are metaphors (you know what that means, I hope?) Even bible literalists know that the dust on God's feet are not actual clouds. They have nothing to do with the weather.

— David Heddle

The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

— David Heddle

RGD, Wesley, and the gang

No, it doesn't. If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science.

Guys, this is not a difficult point to grasp. At least it shouldn't be.

If evolutionists agree on something, it's a dogmatic orthodoxy; if they disagree, they're squabbling about every detail of evolutionary theory. If a piece of evidence seems to count against evolution, evolution has been disproven; if it seems to count for evolution, that merely shows that evolution is unfalsifiable. If scientists state that they are personally atheistic, they are clearly exposing the rotten metaphysical heart of evolution; if they state that they are religious, they are clearly trying to cover the rotten heart up. If we learn anything new, it's evidence that our current theory is completely false; if what we learn is exactly what we expected, it's only because we were precommitted to finding it in the first place. If we point out where creationists are wrong, we are persecuting the underdog; if we ignore them, we are refusing to face the fact that they're right. If a piece of evidence supports one part of evolutionary theory, it doesn't support that other part. If we find a strong piece of evidence for evolution, there ought to be more just like it. If an evolutionist speaks out in favor of Darwinism, it's because they were strong-armed into it; if they say anything which can be taken out of context to suggest any skepticism about evolution, it's resounding proof that nobody in science believes the theory.

Comment #30358 Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s) Steve, My second denial is that you know anything about science and probability.

The ancient Hebrews surely believed that Yahweh literally controlled the weather. Indeed, the connection of the principal God with thunder and floods is a lot older than its Jewish version. And the folks from the Near East had a lot of compoany for a long time. For most of the last 3,000 years, most people in most cultures belived that not only God almighty but mere witches could raise storms. The notion that all the storm-god language of the Bible is metaphorical is merely convenient, another instance of the way in which religiosity promotes unethical philology.

I thought David had gotten embarrassed that he was in the camp of people like Dembski and Wagner, and Sancho P. Cordova, and was gone for good.

Maybe he just took some time off to write his book on ID Statistics. (subtitled: Distributions? We don't need no stinkin Distributions)

The notion that all the storm-god language of the Bible is metaphorical is merely convenient, another instance of the way in which religiosity promotes unethical philology.

The rest demonstrate that God can intervene supernaturally, if he choses to control the weather. That has no bearing on meteorology as a science.

So in order to be, as you say, self-consistent, then just replace weather and meteorology with evolution. Big deal.

Guys, this is not a difficult point to grasp. At least it shouldn’t be.

If "self-consistent" can mean having inconsistent
and irrational viewpoints about things, then hey I for one can see your point very well.

David Heddle -

"If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science."

I don't know what you mean by "promotes atheism". However, it's utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn't promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase. The theory of evolution does not address atheism or theism. It does not provide intellectual arguments for or against atheism. It has nothing to do with atheism. Those who say it does, whether self-proclaimed atheists or self-proclaimed religious figures, are either mistaken or lying. Those who find their tenuous faith in God challenged by scientific explanations of physical reality have a spiritual problem, not a scientific problem. Dishonest attacks on science will ultimately serve them nothing.

I disagree with your logic above. It is true that someone might fear that the scientific investigation of some phenomenae somehow presents a greater challenge to their religion than the scientific investigation of other things. A Voudon priest who accepts most science might argue that scientific investigation of Voudon claims should be banned, as it could "promote anti-Voudonism". But this is ultimately a cowardly and inconsistent stance. Meteorology differs from biology only in subject matter.

I love it!  It was recently discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.  There are two proposed explanations: 1) our understanding of gravity is flawed 2) there's an unknown form of energy that counteracts and overcomes the force of gravity at great distances

— not buyin it

If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism. One could believe the specifics of evolution are the culprit, not the fact that it is a science.

1. Evolution isn't real science.

Johnson and his followers, microbiologists and geologists and philosophers, debate in the language of science rather than Scripture. They point to the complexity of the human cell, with its natural motors and miles of coding.

[Darwin's theory of evolution] explains the proliferation of species and the interaction of DNA and RNA, not to mention the evolution of humankind.

One day while browsing in a bookstore, Johnson picked up a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins . . . Johnson devoured dozens more evolutionary texts. He found extraordinary minds and polemics, but the evidence didn't much impress him.

Then there's the inconvenient fact that most species evolve little during the span of their existence, which leaves the mystery of how to account for evolutionary leaps.

And scientists still puzzle at the great explosion of life known as the "Cambrian explosion," when thousands of multicellular animals appeared over 10 or 20 million years (a blink of the eye in evolutionary terms).

So in order to be, as you say, self-consistent, then just replace weather and meteorology with evolution. Big deal.

However, it's utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn't promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase.

Heddle must therefore believe that there is some aspect of evolutionary science which is different from meteorological science - in other words, their processes must be different.

However, it's utterly obvious that the theory of evolution doesn't promote atheism under any reasonable interpretation of this phrase.

That's ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of "how much." Of course, you can arbitrarily dismiss those people as not counting for this or that reason.

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

Darn, I posted too fast. Mr. Heddle's point - that one could believe evolution promotes atheism because of it's implied lack of a creator, is precisely the same issue that is possessed by meteorology. Hence, the intellectual inconsistency of objecting to one rather than the other.

You deny that someone might conclude that evolution is too at-odds with scripture and at the same time conclude that other sciences create no insurmountable tension with the bible? That the fact that evolution deals with the nature of life itself might, just might, mean that one views its ramifications in a special light.

I don't deny any of that. (Obviously there are plenty of people who feel that way about things like evolution and crop circles and whatnot.) But the topic was "self-consistency" and it seems to me that viewing something in a special light would indicate an inconsistency in ones views. I mean, I suppose I could go around all day viewing ramifications in a special light and claim that I am self-consistently inconsistent, but that wouldn't make very much sense, now would it...

David Heddle -

"That's ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God?"

I can't possibly know what every person has 'decided' for the last 200 years, nor can you, nor is that a sane standard for saying that something "promotes atheism". But anyone who "lost faith in God" because they heard of the theory of evolution was lacking in faith to begin with, and also misunderstood the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution, for now, explains how life achieved its present physical diversity on earth. It has nothing to do with God or atheism, and that's obvious. If a billion people claim that it does, they're all wrong. Likewise, if the theory of evolution were "wrong", what would that have to do with the existence of God?

I don't understand your terminology "makes it unnecessary to believe in God". It is never "necessary" to believe in God, how could it be (putting aside deterministic Calvinism, whose adherents wouldn't use the word "necessary" at any rate)? Belief in God is a matter of faith. If your faith in God is so frail and tenuous that you need to tell yourself that some physical phenomenon is "proof" of God's existence, that's your problem. If your idea of spiritual faith is some kind of grudging admission that God must be "necessary" because there is "no other explanation for the bacterial flagellum", then God help you is all I can say.

If you're trying to say that you want to make it "necessary" for people to believe in God by lying to them about science, or keeping them ignorant of it, I don't agree with that goal. It would be as dishonest as it is illogical. Nor is there any reason to believe that scientifically ignorant people find it "necessary" to believe in God.

I suspect that your underlying issue is that you want to force other people to say that they believe as you claim to believe. I suspect this because of your use of the words "unnecessary to believe in God".

"That's ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of "how much." Of course, you can arbitrarily dismiss those people as not counting for this or that reason. "

are you saying that no OTHER branch of science has served the same unreasonable purpose for the delusional?

I think you need a history lesson, Hedley.

"Evolution has to do with life, and meteorology with the weather. It is obvious (to the point of absurdity) how the one has a greater potential impact on one's faith than the other."

that depends on how one's "faith" manifests itself now, doesn't it? It IS obvious to those reading your missives exactly how YOUR faith manifests itself. However, when you try to include the rest of the world in your interpretation of faith, you can only fail.

That is kinda the point; ID creationists have simply decided that their faith cannot stand dissension of any kind; not scientific, not religious, not philosophical.

What would happen to you, Hedley, if you for one day, decided to broaden your faith a bit? would you spontaneously combust?

why on earth do you feel the need to make these ridiculous arguments?

I think harold hit your "faith" right on the head:

"They feel threatened by scientific explanations of anything, but especially of the cosmos or the evolution of the human physical body. This is because once science explains something, it is harder for them to use that particular physical phenomenon as a crutch to "prove" the existence of God to themselves. Because their own insecurities are irrationally exacerbated by science, they falsely claim that science is related to "secular humanism", various dictatorial political systems (note that this a direct contradiction of saying that it is related to humanism), "materialism", "atheism", "cultural decline", or whatever else they can come up with to express their own tormenting doubts and insecurities with regard to their own relationship to God. All of this is nonsense. Science is compatible with secular humanism, but equally so with Lutheranism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc."

Ask yourself why you feel your "faith" is threatened by evolutionary theory, when mainstream christianity does not.

Ever think that perhaps to us "It is obvious (to the point of absurdity) " that you are the one who is not grasping simple concepts.

RGD:

Are you reading the same stuff I am? If Mr. Heddle's scripture says "there are NO elephants then meteorology is agnostic, since it says nothing about elephants either way, while zoology is antagonistic, because zoology claims there ARE elephants. The devil is in the details.

As I'm reading what he writes, he equates atheism with failure to believe in his scripture according to his interpretation of what that scripture means. Yes, of course one can be a meteorologist without believing in Heddles interpretations, because meteorology doesn't speak to them in any way. There's no way to tell if a meteorologist is a "Heddle atheist" until that meteorologist directly addresses materials overlapping Heddle's scriptural interpretations, in which case the meteorologist either confirms or denies them. There are no other allowed postures in Heddle's theology.

Dembski said something much more general: Any science without Jesus Christ at the center of it is fatally incomplete at best, hopelessly incorrect as the norm, and dangerously vicious at worst. At least Heddle's interpretation of scripture is much more narrowly constrained. Heddle's creator only created Heddle but not the weather. Dembski's creator created both.

lol.

take note David:

5 different people who essentially posted the exact same conclusions about your comments, all at the same time.

If it were me, at this point i would be thinking to myself, "hmm, might be time to re-examine what i am saying."

That's ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God? It is not a question of whether evolution promotes atheism, it is only a question of "how much."

Not even one person in the last 200 years has used Christianity to justify any of them? Please.

Do you actually believe that both sciences have exactly the same potential impact on one's faith? It boggles the mind.

Arun Gupta writes: "But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose. "

No it doesn't. God exists outside of time. We're in time, like a person in a labyrinth, and unable to see the full extent of it, or where the paths lead. God, being outside, is not so limited, and can view the ends of all the paths at once.

If all moments in time are as one to Him, then he can know the outcome of billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution, from the 'start', and doesn't need to constantly fiddle with details.

It seems to me that many Christians have a concept of God which is too limited.

Not Listening wrote: perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

David Heddle wrote: If one believes (right or wrong) that evolution promotes atheism, is does not follow from the rules of logic that one must believe all science promotes atheism.

David Heddle writes: "That's ridiculous. Are you saying there is not even one person in the last two hundred years that has not decided that evolution makes it unnecessary to believe in God?"

Er, the Reformation probably led people to think it was unnecessary to believe in God.

After all, if, instead of a concrete authority of Biblical interpretation, every church can have its own, idiosyncratic interpretation of Christianity, and indeed every person can have his or her own, then who's right? It becomes impossible to know what's correct Christian belief, so why not cast off the details and adhere only to the general moral principles?

"If Johnson's argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too."

Unban GWW!

BTW, the "obscenity" he used, that prompted banning, was 'etallef', backwards, or so he says at pharyngula.
On second thought, banning's too good for him! To the stake! Get those bundles of sticks tied up together, you know, uh....oops, better not call them THAT!

Back on topic, please?

I enjoy playing "whack a mole" with creationist trolls as much as anyone, but is there any chance we can get back on topic? I think the topic Reed raises is an important one.

What about the issue of journalism giving IDers more cred than they deserve?

In another thread someone posted a note about how their professors were so surprised to see PR and marketing winning out over honest science.

Isn't it about time we started playing the PR game more?

What will you say when the PR machine that is the current right wing rolls into your department? Aren't we all tired of seeing the decline in funding for the sciences from the right wing; especially in the biological sciences?

I threw out one idea about giving journalists who act intellingently free memberships in scientific societies to encourage them.

does that idea suck, or have merit? any other ideas?

ack! make that Nick instead of Reed. sorry.

But, though it pains me to do so, I feel the need to defend the spirit of his remarks, precisely because, as he said, evolution has to do directly with life itself.

— Russell

It is true that the article contains inaccuracies ("[Johnson] agrees the world is billions of years old" --- no, he doesn't);

— Nick Matzke

On the other hand, our observations of how life has changed over time on our planet does put restrictions on the actions of a creator, if one exists.

— PaulP

I am a long-time science writer and i've taken the liberty of posting this site on my blog...Of Cabbages and Kings )http://cabbageskings.blogspot.com mainly because I completely agree. Unfortunately, the media, piled under mountains of abuse from the radical right, no longer has the guts to take them on. The media has long been accused of having a liberal bias. In fact, it has become the most conservative institution in the country.

5 different people who essentially posted the exact same conclusions about your comments, all at the same time. If it were me, at this point i would be thinking to myself, "hmm, might be time to re-examine what i am saying."

Hi Joel;

thanks for the visit, and welcome.

Could you please clarify for me, "mainly because I completely agree"?

there has been a lot of info posted here, and I was wondering if you could clarify that a bit.

thanks

http://haloscan.com/tb/atrios/111627509129651200

Eschaton linking to PZ Myers' article.

Great stuff and a cheap way to get the word out about blogs like this one. Perhaps when Michael Powell reads PZ's article he'll have a moment of insight ...

I recommend those PT readers who are occasionally troubled by the "tone" of the discussions here to read the comments on Eschaton at the above link. Salty!

There are some very intelligent and very passionate people out there -- a heck of a lot of them. Go PT! Go science!

I second Sir toejams call for action. But I am a UK resident, and over here it isnt much of an issue, and likely wont be for years. So, I would like to cheer you all on, and ask a few critical questions:

Have you any idea what the popular impression of the ID/ Science debate is just now? What about the Kansas debacle?

What are the easiest ways to get the science behind evolution out to members of the public?

How can the media be made more aware of science in particular, so that they dont lap up ID peoples soundbites?

Perhaps you could start an evolutionary soundbite competition?

Warning: This post is on topic.

WaPo is trying desperately to retain credibility with the fundies in the current government, presumably because supporting the war in Iraq wasn't good enough. So they publish a sympathetic article about the Chief Dissembler, Johnson, leaving out his Second Denial, about HIV and AIDS.

More to the point, there is an unfortunate tradition of trying to be "fair and balanced" by publishing deniers of settled science, as a way of "teaching both sides." Science is uncompromising, however, in its intolerance of BS, which makes these tactics all the more infuriating. Some within the Journalism community have worked to overcome this misconception, but without complete success.

Sir Toe_Jam -

On the topic...

I have concluded that there is ultimately only one way to fight back against ID - with a positive, proactive approach.

By positive I don't mean acting all happy all the time, all though that's actually a good strategy (note - the reason I try to keep my comments polite, and usually succeed, is because it would violate the "traditional values" I live by to pointlessly insult, disrespect, and taunt people - some here live by different values). By positive I mean taking the initiative instead of acting on the defensive all the time.

ID is a clever con game indeed. There aren't all that many Americans who want someone making it "necessary to believe in God", when you get right down to it (we have ways of making it 'necessary'...). But when a gentle scientisty type uses words like "paradigm" and "complexity" to claim that the inoccuous "bacterial flagellum" is "proof" of a "higher power", it seems nice. And arguing against it creates the false impression that we're arguing against faith in God (ironically, as I have pointed out, ID is the opposite of faith, implicitly tying belief in God to physical "proof").

Somebody has got to do the opposite what the creationists do, and start running around talking about how great science is, and do it in a way that attracts an audience. (I note here that level of scientific literacy or education, or indeed just interest in science, almost certainly has a strong negative correlation with criminal or violent behavior. Science promotes "traditional values"!)

Let me make it clear that of course, that I'm talking about fighting back against ID in the open marketplace of freely expressed ideas. I defend to the death the right of creationists to believe, express, and publish wrong ideas (not to teach them to schoolchildren as "science" of course, for the same reason that I don't want holocaust deniers teaching "history" to schoolchildren, nor to preach them during movies, and so on - those are the kind of "rights" that creationists seem to want). I just think that somehow, more of us need to take advantage of our right to do the same thing. Also, we should be keenly on top of all creationist output, events, and so on.

Easy to say, hard to do, but that's what's going to have to happen. If we (by "we" I mean all people who value science and science education) just wait for the creationists to take over schoolboards and then run to court, we'll be forever behind the eight-ball. They'll still lose, of course, but they'll make a lot of money and fester for a long time. We can do better than that.

Rilke's Grandaughter -

Thanks for the elegant restatement of my point.

Sir Toe_Jam -

On the topic...

I have concluded that there is ultimately only one way to fight back against ID - with a positive, proactive approach.

By positive I don't mean acting all happy all the time, all though that's actually a good strategy (note - the reason I try to keep my comments polite, and usually succeed, is because it would violate the "traditional values" I live by to pointlessly insult, disrespect, and taunt people - some here live by different values). By positive I mean taking the initiative instead of acting on the defensive all the time.

ID is a clever con game indeed. There aren't all that many Americans who want someone making it "necessary to believe in God", when you get right down to it (we have ways of making it 'necessary'...). But when a gentle scientisty type uses words like "paradigm" and "complexity" to claim that the inoccuous "bacterial flagellum" is "proof" of a "higher power", it seems nice. And arguing against it creates the false impression that we're arguing against faith in God (ironically, as I have pointed out, ID is the opposite of faith, implicitly tying belief in God to physical "proof").

Somebody has got to do the opposite what the creationists do, and start running around talking about how great science is, and do it in a way that attracts an audience. (I note here that level of scientific literacy or education, or indeed just interest in science, almost certainly has a strong negative correlation with criminal or violent behavior. Science promotes "traditional values"!)

Let me make it clear that of course, that I'm talking about fighting back against ID in the open marketplace of freely expressed ideas. I defend to the death the right of creationists to believe, express, and publish wrong ideas (not to teach them to schoolchildren as "science" of course, for the same reason that I don't want holocaust deniers teaching "history" to schoolchildren, nor to preach them during movies, and so on - those are the kind of "rights" that creationists seem to want). I just think that somehow, more of us need to take advantage of our right to do the same thing. Also, we should be keenly on top of all creationist output, events, and so on.

Easy to say, hard to do, but that's what's going to have to happen. If we (by "we" I mean all people who value science and science education) just wait for the creationists to take over schoolboards and then run to court, we'll be forever behind the eight-ball. They'll still lose, of course, but they'll make a lot of money and fester for a long time. We can do better than that.

Rilke's Grandaughter -

Thanks for the elegant restatement of my point.

Jon H, given that scenario...that a god outside of time who set the initial conditions and foresaw the inevitable results . . . why did this god bother using the process at all? How does it differ from just *poof* creating instantaneously?

But more troubling by far, why did this god create humanity, and then hide from us? Or perhaps you believe in revelation? So perhaps you believe that those who do not believe in the saving work of Jesus are damned to everlasting torment. Which would encompass most of humanity, don't you agree? And this god foresaw that most of humanity would suffer eternal torment by this choice to create, and did it anyway. Like a woman with a severe genetic disorder having child after child in the belief that some of them will not die horribly after brutal, agonizing, brief lives. Any human who acted like this god is thought to have, we would label a monster. Yet there are those who can find praiseworthy the image of such a god?

Fortunately, the chance that there is a god is so vanishingly small as to not be worth considering. And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

I defend to the death the right of creationists to believe, express, and publish wrong ideas (not to teach them to schoolchildren as "science" of course, for the same reason that I don't want holocaust deniers teaching "history" to schoolchildren, nor to preach them during movies, and so on - those are the kind of "rights" that creationists seem to want).

By positive I mean taking the initiative instead of acting on the defensive all the time.

One way to take the initiative would be to seek legislation which prohibits any parents who receive public money for child support --- including tax breaks --- from teaching children patently false information such as "the earth is 10,000 years old" in the guise of "science."

" Some within the Journalism community have worked to overcome this misconception, but without complete success"

well, we need to reward those who attempt to do so, imo.

one way would be to offer free memberships in scientific societies.

it seems an easy way to provide support. not much effort would be involved in doing this, yes?

so what would be the first step?

well, as far as i can tell, we would have to get some non-profit to sponsor donation of memberships in scientific societies, so those societies could then write off donations of memberships.

then, all we need to do is select a few dozen prominent journalists that actually show an understanding of what's really going on through their publications, and make a public spectacle of "awarding" them with these memberships.

Can anyone see any major difficulties with this?

anybody suggest a sponsor NGO?

a list of appropriate scientific societies that could provide memberships?

If it's a bad idea, or would take too much effort, just tell me to shove off; otherwise...

Oh ,that'll work---yeah, tons of people will agree with that, especially in those pesky red states.

"anybody suggest a sponsor NGO?"

hmm. thinking a bit more about this... why not make PT a 501c3? then IT could become the sponsor organization, and the members here could put together a list of journalists to "award".

It was recently discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. There are two proposed explanations: 1) our understanding of gravity is flawed 2) there's an unknown form of energy that counteracts and overcomes the force of gravity at great distances Anti-gravity. Get used to it folks. I have. Once you get used to anti-gravity perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Steve U -

I meant "in public schools", of course. I hate it when parents teach children garbage at home (and there's a lot of garbage that's a lot worse than creationism per se being taught), but I have a high threshold of respect for the rights of parents.

Greg Peterson -

Your attempt to use science to defend atheism is logically incorrect. It's just a version of the argument from incredulity. You can't conceive of a God who is compatible with evolution, therefore no God must exist. It works equally well in reverse, and in fact, it's used in reverse (of the way you use it) by creationists all the time. The same fatuous logic can make use of any scientific fact to "disprove God". "Earth goes 'round the sun, does it? Oh, I can't conceive of a God who would allow that, so atheism must be correct." Please note that I am NOT interested in getting into a discussion with you about my personal beliefs or the existence of God, nor am I arguing AGAINST your atheism, that is not my point. My point is...

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether God exists. It explains how the diversity of life on earth developed WHETHER GOD, VISHNU, ALLAH, ZEUS, GHOSTS, LEPERACHAUNS, ETC EXIST OR NOT. I don't mean to compare faith in God to belief in leperachauns, I am just pointing out that they are both equally not dealt with by the theory of evolution. Popping up at the end and saying "Oh, if it happened this way, God must not exist, because I say He wouldn't have done it this way" serves little purpose.

If I sound a little harsh, it is because this is an important principle. Lay people draw inappropriate philosophical conclusions from science, and science ends up being taken to task for philosophical arguments to which it has no connection.

Heddle -

It is amusing to see that you and Peterson make the same logical error, yet arrive at opposite irrational conclusions. He claims to believe that "evolution proves atheism", and therefore concludes that since evolution is a strong scientific theory, he must become an atheist (unless he is an atheist for other reasons, in which case he's being dishonest). You claim to believe that "evolution proves atheism", and conclude that since you don't want to be an atheist, you must set out "disprove evolution", with predictably frustrating results for yourself and others.

Why can't you believe in God EVEN IF life, evolved, or WHETHER OR NOT life evolved, for that matter? Is your Christianity sincere? Or is it a hypocritical appendage of a particular ideological slant?

Incidentally, from a neutral economic perspective, and whatever one's views on tax rates and public expenditures, when some people or businesses are given tax breaks relative to others, for whatever reason, it IS a way of receiving public money, and in fact, "tax credits" are often sent out as physical checks from the government. They pay less, others pay more - it is the same thing as if those who did not receive the tax break sent money to those who did. This is really just common sense. I'm sure if your local government were giving tax breaks to some company you didn't approve of, you'd be howlingly able to get this.

sir_t asked: Is there any way we could get more science journalists to check in here periodically?

Nick wrote: the Discovery Institute's systematic harassment of reporters and news organizations has finally had an impact.

Nick wrote: Go ask Stephen Meyer about how evolution can't produce new information, and then ask Manyuan Long about how new genes evolve.

I here estimate the energy cost of changes in gene expression for several thousand genes in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. A doubling of gene expression, as it occurs in a gene duplication event, is significantly selected against for all genes for which expression data is available. It carries a median selective disadvantage of s > 10?5, several times greater than the selection coefficient s = 1.47 x 10?7 below which genetic drift dominates a mutant's fate. When considered separately, increases in messenger RNA expression or protein expression by more than a factor 2 also have significant energy costs for most genes. This means that the evolution of transcription and translation rates is not an evolutionarily neutral process. They are under active selection opposing them. My estimates are based on genome-scale information of gene expression in the yeast S. cerevisiae as well as information on the energy cost of biosynthesizing amino acids and nucleotides.

Rather than finding us to be the dishonest, fanatical, ignorant people you claim, the journalists instead discover we IDists are thoughtful, intelligent, educated, open minded, articulate, sincere, and charming.

One way to take the initiative would be to seek legislation which prohibits any parents who receive public money for child support --- including tax breaks --- from teaching children patently false information such as "the earth is 10,000 years old" in the guise of "science."

Sal, get lost ya frickin' sycophant.

go get some hot monkey love from Dembski.

I think it’s because they’re beginning to find us anti-establishment revolutionaries to be more colorful, charming, and positive than the Darwinists.

grrr. feel free to move my last comment to the BW, but I'm so sick of that guy.

Sancho Panza never had sex with Don Quiote, you weirdo.

@qetzal:

"Some might perceive (or at least portray) free society memberships as "bribes" and accuse the reporter in question of being biased accordingly. I'm not sure how much of a problem that might really be."

no more of a problem than the public seems to regard the negative pressure put on reporters to "fairly cover the creationist side"

Aside from that, a bribe would be offering memberships in order to GENERATE a specific report; an award is recognition for an already published piece.

Using your argument, there should never be journalism awards because those would be bribes.

"PT could even make it a practice to highlight articles that readers might find worthy of such positive feedback."

are you being sarcastic? If not, then er, they already do.

Greg wrote: "But more troubling by far, why did this god create humanity, and then hide from us? Or perhaps you believe in revelation? So perhaps you believe that those who do not believe in the saving work of Jesus are damned to everlasting torment. "

Actually, I'm a skeptical agnostic Buddhist (I think of 'rebirth' metaphorically, etc).

I just find it fascinating that Creationists and ID supporters believe in such a puny God. If they insist that God is a micromanaging meddler, or that the primitive Genesis myth is true, it means they believe God would be *incapable* of doing things in a more detached manner.

If a person believes that "with God, all things are possible", then God could just as easily somehow create the universe and mankind via evolution without twiddling the details, like the construction of the cell. How? I don't know. As it were, God works in mysterious ways.

A God that can create the universe, and allow it to evolve over billions of years, culminating in sentient life, without twiddling to guide the development, yet knowing where it'll end up, strikes me as being *far* more magical and mystical and mysterious and powerful and, well, God-like, than a celestial microbiologist, sweating over cilia and membranes and amino acids, and watching the clock to know when to make changes.

However, thinking of God as a microbiologist, or an engineer, or an architect, is easier. And thinking of his work of creation as a work of design, or engineering, or architecture, or nanotechnology, is easier than thinking of his work being a complete mystery.

And, of course, people like to feel that Jesus is watching over them, or guardian angels, or whatever, and think that if God isn't making cilia spin, then they lose that comforting belief of divine favoritism and participation in their lives.

However, I, myself, am not Christian, and have never been much for organized religion and ritual.

With all due respect, this is a bad idea. Heddle is correct - many people would portray this as proof that science is just a different kind of "religious" dogma, using the government to force its "beliefs" on people. A proposal like that would do immeasurable harm, IMHO.

I basically agree with steve.

this is not a scientific debate
this is not a religious debate
this is not even a rational debate

this is politics, pure and simple. It is the attempt by a minority to force it's beliefs on the rest of us.

Using science to battle creationists, pardon the upcoming pun, is like fighting apples with oranges.

I think even the republicans are starting to get sick of the extremeist right, as evidenced by laura bush's recent lampoon.

this needs to be emphasized; mainstream politics (both Demo and Rep) need to reject religious extremeists as being fundamentally incompatible with representative democracy. that's why it was written into the constitution to begin with; the detriment to rational governance borne by extreme religious viewpoints is certainly nothing new.

now that that bit of thought is done, can we move to more practical matters?

I for one think that this battle is best fought in the popular media, and we have a lot of catching up to do.

encouraging decent journalism by posting copies or links here is good, but it needs to go further.

We need to get the media back on "our side". Public recognition (media events) to bring attention to well-written journalism (like the Nat. Geo article that came out last year), should be more common.

How hard could it be to arrange this kind of thing?

once the media begins to publish more and more articles showing the fringe nature of ID, less and less politicians will feel a need to reach out to the fringe as a political base.

if we can accomplish that, we won. You will never convince a creationist to change their minds (hell, just check heddle's, or Dave scott's, or Slavador's posts). the only thing we need to do is convince the politicians that there is no need to utilize these extremeists as a power base.

I think it's because they're beginning to find us anti-establishment revolutionaries to be more colorful, charming, and positive than the Darwinists.

Outlining a rational basis for the anti-lying-to-children-about-science-in-a-scholastic-setting (home or elsewhere) legislation is not difficult. The basis doesn't need to be any different, qualitatively, than the basis for such a law applying only to public school classrooms.

Perhaps my medicine is too strong for some folks on our side to stomach. Since I don't intend to indoctrinate my children with lies about science, I am not terribly concerned. Slippery slopes? Again, why should only our side be burdened with such concerns?

"I didn't mean to suggest that was a valid criticism. I think the free membership idea is fine. I was just speculating how creationists might try to spin it. Sorry for being unclear."

fair enough; sorry for misintrepeting.

"(P.S. I'm a little surprised that you weren't more in favor of this suggestion"

well, first off, your suggestion was presented a bit unclearly at first.

of course what you say is a good idea. In fact, i do it myself all the time, and i am sure a good proportion of commenters here on PT do as well.

this is probably why i didn't see a need to really promote the idea as such, but that's probably my fault simply because i already do these things, and don't think twice about it. However, you are right that it would be an easy thing to promote this more often. Perhaps make a seperate section devoted to what's happening out in the media on a daily basis?

"There is no such thing as 'our side' and 'their side' in science. That's the whole point. Scientific ideas live or die based on evidence, not based on who holds to them."

well, not to get too technical, but i have been involved in a "doozy of an argument" from time to time within a particular biology dept., and folks do take sides from time to time.

just like in the rest of the world, it's the intepretation of the evidence, not necessarily the evidence itself, that leads to the arguments. However, as you say, sides are rarely taken with regards to who holds a particular viewpoint, unlike what you and i see wrt to the IDers. I can think of no case to better illustrate that than the Salvador/Dembski connection.

unlike most of the rest of the world, most scientists consider lively debate to be a good thing. In the world of the IDer, debate is quashed at every opportunity. everyone there is scared to admit the truth to themselves, i guess.

David Heddle

1) Ninety percent of Peterson's observation rejects the existence of a god for moral reasons outside of the perview of science in general and evolution in particular.

2)Substitute the woman with a farmer praying for his crops while ignorant of meteorological realities and then suffering a similar fate and you get the same result: faith betrayed, and misery.

3)And with apologies to Peterson:
...And let's not pretend that the facts of meteorology leaves it no less likely that there is a god.  Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

Thankful, thankful, thankful, for what??

PaulP, You and Frank must have gone to school together. I did not assert that evolution precludes the possibility of a creator. I wrote: "it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism"

David Heddle: apologies for mistyping your name.

Thinking further, it seems to me increasingly strange that creationists have a problem with evolution rather than with chemistry and physics.

As the name implies a creationist is talking about how things like the universe and life started. Now on the question of how life started evolution has nothing to say, but physics and chemistry are working on it, particularly the chemists. So creationists should be protesting about those atheistic chemists trying to create life in their laboratories. But they aren't. I wonder why?

While I concur with the logical undercurrent below squabbles about whether evolution confirms atheism or is not inconsistent with a belief in a deity--that a deity is not proved or disproven with the science of biological evolution, eg. God architecting DNA mutation or not, this would in fact would place any diety's performance level to that capable of a human. ID'ers all--Cordova, Heddle and Dembski--should take note of this. Considering such biological atavisms as the buried eyes of the Mexican Tetra(fish), whale feet, and nearer to home the human tail, any semblance of "design" in these processes of generation bears all the earmarks of trial-and-error algorithmic design, ie. design without foresight. This is science, strident with the theory of evolution, and also has serious implications for traditional religionist who have concepts of a grand "external agent" intimately involved in ongoing changes.

PaulP,

Apologies for typos are unnecessary (except for Dr. GH, who makes a big deal out of them.)

Still, I appreciate it.

Salvador T. Cordova wrote: I think it's because they're beginning to find us anti-establishment revolutionaries to be more colorful, charming, and positive than the Darwinists.

May I assume that you mean restrictions on how the creator did/does it, as opposed to how the creator could have done it?

I thought the definition of faith was belief *in the absence of proof*. If God left fingerprints, then discovering them (finding such proof) would destroy the need for faith.

I'm well aware that creationists already accuse science of being just another "faith." That doesn't mean we should behave accordingly; that would merely validate their position.

I agree one could outline a rational basis for such a law.

Besides - who is going to decide what qualifies as "lying to children about science"? Who will enforce this?

Sounds disturbingly totalitarian to me.

It sounds like you are letting creationists goad you into treating science as an exercise in partisanship.

Their position is already validated, qetzal.

Whether the creationists will try to spin the actions of scientists into some sort of "science is religion" argument is irrelevant --- they will always attempt to do that, no matter what action is taken.

Again, this is politics. It's about power. If our side doesn't get control of the ball and try to score, the other side will.

And you worry that a measure aimed at ensuring that children are educated as to basic scientific facts (not lies) is "totalitarian"?

Those are good questions. I think it would be a good exercise for you to try and answer them. In formulating your answer, you might consider (1) who answers those questions now in the public school setting and (2) who enforces laws which protect children right now. And think about the answers to those questions in light of what will happen if the creationists and religious hardliners start winning some of their court cases.

Look at it this way: which would [you] rather have? Indoctrinating public school children that there is scientific evidence proving the existence of the Christian God, and all that will inevitably follow from that? Or a public referendum on how innocent children should not be brainwashed and lied to?

Partisanship? I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are plenty of Republicans who want nothing to do with creationists.

Again: the goal was to put the creationists on the defensive. My point is that there are ways of doing that. We know what those ways are because (surprise!) the creationists have been using those methods themselves. They haven't succeeded in the courts yet but they are working to fundamentally alter that aspect of the game as well. If the public can be made to focus on the issue of lying to children about science, period, the creationists effort to institutionalize those lies in public schools appears in a new light.

"It looks like the Washington Post has just seen fit to publish a long, fairly uncritical profile piece on Phillip Johnson. "

Unsurprising, given that it's a paper owned by The Moonies. They are certainly going to be ID-friendly (for as long as it suits their needs to be so, I would guess).

"It looks like the Washington Post has just seen fit to publish a long, fairly uncritical profile piece on Phillip Johnson. " Unsurprising, given that it's a paper owned by The Moonies.

Oops. My mistake.

Sorry.

Nick wrote: A Plea to science journalists Once, just once, I would like to see one of this nation's many fine science journalists do an investigative report on the major "scientific" claims of the ID movement.

The Discovery Institute's [Design Revolutionaries] are younger and better educated than most of the traditional [anti-Darwnists]. Their public relations [methods] are up to date and skillful; they [have charisma which enthralls] the media. They are very well funded, and their commitment is fired by the same sincere [moral] fervor that characterized earlier and less affluent versions of [anti-Darwinism]. This combination makes them crusaders, just as inspired as, but much more effective than, the old [anti-Darwinists]...... The Wedge's public relations blitzs (intended to revolutionize public opinion); its legal strategizing (intended as groundwork for major court cases yet to come); and its feverish political alliance-building (through which the Discovery Institute hopes to shape public policy) all consitute a [Revolution which will displace Darwinism with the science of Design].... [this] new breed of ... scholars [IDists] redefines the old evolution-versus-creationism debate and fashions a movement with more intellectual firepower, mainstream appeal, and academic respectability. They have enough financial backing and ... zeal to outlast what little effectively organized opposition to them presently exists, especiallly in the higher education community.....There is, of course, the further--and very real--possiblity that the demographics of the jucdiciary will shift toward [a position favorable to the Design Revolution in Science]....

The readers' patience may well be tried at times by the repetitiosness of Wedge activities: conferences, websites, trade book and media publications and appearances, testimony before legistlative bodies and educations committees...The Wedge's efficient and planned repetitiousness is itself one of our main points. In fact, it is one of the most remarkable examples in our time of naked public relations management [in the promtion of ID's scientific truth and the Design Revolution]

I'm sure you and Demb Quixote are going to kick those windmills' asses any day now, Sancho.

Speaking of that, what are the IDers saying these days? Are they still pretending CSI is a viable theory, which hasn't been destroyed? Or like Paul Nelson, are they saying that they have tantalizing 'notions' which will soon turn into a theory? What's the claim over there?

Cordova seems to have no problem with the fact the the "ID movement" is all about PR and nothing about research. He seems positively proud of it! Sometime when I'm bored, I'd like to go through all the PT threads and compile all the serious questions that have been posed to Sal et al. that have gone unaddressed.

Anyone who is a theist and a scientist must (and this really is a must, unlike Nick's) acknowledge that God can act in a supernatural way---and that all we can do is study the science. For if you do not believe that God can act in a supernatural way, then you are not really a theist.

But Sal, you fail to note Dr. Forrest's comments on the science of ID.

Reread what Nick said. He was not sloppy with words.

The 10 new fellows are among the leading print and broadcast journalists at the top news outlets in the US and UK, including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Scientific American, New Scientist, Philadelphia Inquirer, Newsday, National Public Radio, ABC, and the BBC.

Those are not the only two choices available. I prefer Door Number 3 - continue to challenge creationists to produce their (non-existent) scientific evidence.... etc.

*ahem* 1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, 1a. and how do we test it using the scientific method?

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

Lenny Flank asked: 1a. and how do we test it using the scientific method?

answer (from our John Calvert, the ID lawyer

We get congress to give a monetary grant to explore ways to test the theory

One good experiment is a repeat of Pasteurs proof against spontaneous generation

Apparently you need more persuasion from experimental evidence.

One are of research would be making empirical measurements on the decay of genomes and showing natural selection is failing to sustain integrated complexity, much less cause it to increase.

We would test key predictions related to Walter ReMine's Biotic message

We would further Richard Sternberg's work on Process Structuralism

demsontrate phylogenetic methods are impeding progess in understanding biology and potentially impeding development of pharmaceuticals.

We would the persue Dembski's quest of finding steganography in biology to advance novel approaches to biotechnology.

We get congress to give a monetary grant to explore ways to test the theory. I recommend we redirect money being wasted on the "Nation Center for Evolutionary Synthesis". We get DI scientists to conduct the experiments and publish the results. One good experiment is a repeat of Pasteurs proof against spontaneous generation, and by way of implication, against abiogenesis.

Salvador,

You haven't answered any questions re ID/C because there are no answers. The Nature story too has made it pretty clear why you are into this scheme of things. Please define

-Intelligence

-Design

The Great/Dear Leader has already turned tail and is now advising ID-ots to ask "Darwinists" to define Design! The guy knows that his work is in the trash can how much ever he crows and has guys like you to bleat out his praises. As for the scientists think, the Leader is not even an oddity any longer -- he is now relegated to crank status.

In any field of research -- something that scientists and intellectuals conduct; for you don't seem to have a clue -- you first define the terms you use; not taking their meaning for granted. You haven't defined Intelligence and Design.

Consult your Great/Dear Leader (s) on these definitions take down their bakwas and turn up here to get fisked.

just for fun, Sal, what do you make of the discovery on complex organics on Titan?

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050426/ca_pr_on_sc/cassini_titan

note that for many years, it has been shown in the lab that the carbon compounds on titan could produce amino acids and complex organics; this most recent data simply shows that "in situ" as it were.

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection --- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

But we need money to do this.

Nick's wish may come true, and the Design Revolutionaries may be getting more publicity.

I'm so sorry I've ignored ya Lenny

"The ID people are already crowing."

Following the link, I see:

"Phil Johnson is the Gandalf of the West."

Ummmm, I don't seem to recall where the Bible mentions the creation of hobbits..... Help me out, folks. Or, could it be, perhaps, that this person has difficulty distinguishing between myth and reality ... could it???

Cheers,

According to William Saletan in Slate (follow links above):

"An ID proponent recognizes that ID theory may be disproved by new evidence."

A feint. There is no "ID theory" that can be disproved by new evidence. Someone ought to tell Mr. Saletan.

Cheers,

Steve U.

Fair point, re "new strategies." I agree with your goal of taking it to the creationists, and give you credit for proposing new strategies (even if I disagree with the one in question).

Not sure what makes you think I'm being defensive, but that isn't how I feel.

As for the terms of the discussion changing, OK, but a) you were the one who changed them initially, b) that by itself doesn't really speak to the merit of your proposal. Why not propose to put creationists through forced re-education, or sterilize them so they can't reproduce. That would really change the terms of the discussion. :-)

Again, I think the spirit of what you're asking for is right. Put creationism & ID on the defensive. I just think it needs to be done in a way that doesn't erode science's credibility.

Idea #2 sounds great to me.

"Anyone who is a theist and a scientist must (and this really is a must, unlike Nick's) acknowledge that God can act in a supernatural way."

—

Why not propose to put creationists through forced re-education, or sterilize them so they can't reproduce. That would really change the terms of the discussion. :-)

Lenny Flank asked: 1a. and how do we test it using the scientific method? We get congress to give a monetary grant to explore ways to test the theory.

—

... ID's 4th law of thermodynamics . . .

—

But we need money to do this. We can fund it by taking it from the Darwnists research programs where it been wasted it for decades in fabricating "just so" stories . . . .

—

1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, 1a. and how do we test it using the scientific method? answer (from our John Calvert, the ID lawyer we all know and love) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection --- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Based on interpretations of physical law, especially quantum mechanics, the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause.

The views of a large number of contemporary physcal scientists are summed up in the essay "remarks on the Mind-Body Question" written by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner. Wigner begins by pointing out that most physical scientists have returned to the recognition that thought--meaning the mind--is primary. he goes on to state: "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." And he concludes by noting how remarkable it is that the scientific study of the world led to the content of consciousness as the ultimate reality. . . . . Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system. . . . . What emerges from all this is the return of "mind" to all areas of scientific thought . . .

My definition of intelligent design is a little more augmented to tie it to existing laws of physics, thus it is not really a new theory, but simply an interpretation of existing physical law: "Based on interpretations of physical law, especially quantum mechanics, the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." But that definition would not fly among most IDists, even though I believe it is a better formulation since in makes a connection to an existing law of physics.

—