Setting the Record Straight at Stanford

Posted 5 May 2005 by Wesley R. Elsberry

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/setting-the-rec.html

Nick Matzke and I will be giving a short presentation and a longer question and answer session on the topic of “intelligent design”. The event is a ‘Presentation and Discussion on Intelligent Design’, Friday, May 6th, 2005, 4-5:30pm, in building 370 (Science, Technology and Society program), Room 370, on the Stanford University campus. The event is sponsored by Rational Thought. The public is welcome. This is a follow-up to the Veritas Forum series of presentations held at Stanford through this week.

If you are in the Bay Area and can make it, we’ll look forward to seeing you there.

20 Comments

Gary Hurd · 5 May 2005

I wish I could be there. I wish even more I could go fishing. Oh well.

Let us know how it goes. Best wishes.

Mark Perakh · 6 May 2005

Nic and Wesley, I am glad you can make it. Best of luck! Hopefullly there is still a majority of reasonable people, at least at Stanford, where Veritas has just held its obscurantist festival.

Sir_Toejam · 6 May 2005

[ot]

a happy belated cinco de mayo to everyone.

cheers

(don't worry, I drank a pint for you)

Boyce Williams · 6 May 2005

Any change the lecture will be recorded for later video streaming? Inquiring minds like to know but are on the other side of the country.

Boyce Williams · 6 May 2005

Oops, change "change" to "chance". Coffie didn't kick in yet.

Ed Darrell · 6 May 2005

Will you address what appears to be Jonathan Wells' departure from the Unification Church? He testifed yesterday in Kansas that he used to follow the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. What happened?

Salvador T. Cordova · 6 May 2005

Thanks for the tip, I dispatched an IDEA sympathizer who is a student at Standford to gather intelligence. By the way, Standford is where IDist Dean Kenyon got his PhD. Fine school.

Great White Wonder · 6 May 2005

Salvador

I dispatched an IDEA sympathizer who is a student at Standford to gather intelligence

Yet another young man? Or a young lady this time? Why don't your li'l disciples ever show up here to defend you, Sal? I really do believe your lying about them. You know, kind of in the same way you misrepresent facts and lie about all kinds of other stuff all the time.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 6 May 2005

By the way, Standford is where IDist Dean Kenyon got his PhD.

That would be the same Dean Kenyon, co-writer of "Pandas and People", who admitted later that he wrote the book for religious reasons. Right? Are you going to answer my simple questions, Sal? Forget them already? No problem: *ahem* 1. What is the scientific theory of intelligent design, and how do we test it using the scientific method? 2. According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not? 3. what, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than weather forecasting, accident investigation, or medicine? 4. do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway?

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 6 May 2005

Will you address what appears to be Jonathan Wells' departure from the Unification Church? He testifed yesterday in Kansas that he used to follow the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. What happened?

Maybe he had a, uh, sudden "conversion" like Ahmanson did . . . . Bad PR, and all that. . . .

catherine · 6 May 2005

How do you make judgments about when to enter the "debate" and when to refuse to legitimize it? You obviously agree with scientists who are refusing to testify in Kansas, but you are lecturing about ID tonight. Does it have to do with how much control over the material you have? I.E. if you set it up as an educational evening about what ID is and why it is not science? As opposed to being part of something the "other" side has set up? I'm really torn, feeling that both Dawkins (no way) and Gould (we don't have any choice but to publicly resist) have good positions. (One feels bad for Gould in that it took up so much of his time, which it turns out he had little left of anyway.)

I'd be interested in your decision making process, should you wish to share it. (Your mission, should you wish to accept it. . .)
Good luck tonight. Let us know what happens.

steve · 6 May 2005

Will you address what appears to be Jonathan Wells' departure from the Unification Church? He testifed yesterday in Kansas that he used to follow the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. What happened?

Maybe he had a, uh, sudden "conversion" like Ahmanson did

A Klieg Light Conversion, you might say. Oh, Everyone in the world's looking? No, of course I'm not a Moonie/Anti-Semite/HIV-denier/whatever...

Descent & Dissent · 7 May 2005

Thanks for the tip, I dispatched an IDEA sympathizer who is a student at Standford to gather intelligence.
— Salvador T. Cordova

NEWS FLASH! Intelligent Design supporter finds himself in need of intelligence.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 7 May 2005

Catherine, I guess by my history I'm closer to Gould than Dawkins on when to present on the topic of "intelligent design". Basically, I'm open to discussing "intelligent design" on my own pretty much by mutual arrangement as to schedule. If the event is a face-to-face type thing, I'd have to consider the context. I've presented at an ID event, the "Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise" conference in 1997. I was pretty hacked off when Phillip Johnson told all of us that by coming we had helped him "legitimate the question", since none of that had appeared in the call for papers. So chalk one up to ignorance. I presented at the CTNS/AAAS "Interpreting Evolution" conference at Haverford College in 2001. I presented at the CSICOP 4th World Skeptics Conference in 2002. Both of those were events that included ID advocates. And I attempted to sign-up for the 2002 RAPID conference at Biola, and asked them if they would like me to present there. About that time, Jed Macosko called me to say that, sorry, the RAPID conference was just for ID advocates. I did attend the public kick-off event there, and Macosko very graciously invited me to join the pre-conference banquet as his guest. Now, about the events at Stanford yesterday... Nick gave a 45 minute talk based on responding to the points in Behe's lecture. Nick made the point that while Behe likes a mousetrap as an example, that when the issue is biology, one should use biological examples. Nick took up the Venus Flytrap as an example, and how the evidence indicates an evolutionary origin for this irreducibly complex prey capture system. A bonus is that research has confirmed Darwin's hypothesis of its origin. Nick also worked over the E. coli bacterial flagellum, showing the parts that aren't in use in other bacterial flagella, and a table of homologous proteins used for other purposes elsewhere, plus the 17 peer-reviewed bibliographic entries backing that up. Nick also gave a table listing the estimated numbers of papers concerning the evolutionary origins of various systems that ID advocates call "irreducibly complex".

Thanks for the tip, I dispatched an IDEA sympathizer who is a student at Standford to gather intelligence.
— Salvador A. Cordova

Tristan Abbey attended, but I don't recall him asking a question. There was a rude, persistently obnoxious guy who came who apparently thought that "question and answer" meant "I can give my own lecture here." Perhaps that was Salvador's friend. He certainly seemed to have the "I can ignore any sufficient rebuttal to my previous point and just move on to another point" routine down pat. I'll call him "ID guy". ID guy led off by claiming that Nick hadn't addressed Behe's actual argument. His reasoning, such as it was, seemed to be that Behe asserted that everything had to come together all at once, and this was statistically improbable, and Nick somehow had not addressed this point. It seemed to me that Nick had spent probably 20 minutes addressing that point. Nick's rejoinder that for many of these systems there are plausible pathways that don't require the "everything all at once" scenario did not seem to impinge on ID guy's consciousness. There were a number of bald assertions made by ID guy, including the one about there never having been an observed speciation. He cited Paul Ehrlich as his source. I responded that if Ehrlich had said so, then he was wrong. ID guy smilingly responded that Ehrlich had a Nobel Prize as if that made Ehrlich an infallible ex cathedra source on any topic. It took a few minutes, but I set up the computer to project the TOA observed speciations FAQ. Did ID guy say, "Oh, I guess that I was misinformed on that point"? No, he did not. ID guy picked up the goalposts and ran. There was something about showing observed speciation with an increase in information. By this point, a fair chunk of the audience was getting annoyed with ID guy, and providing their own rejoinders to him. Apparently, what ID guy was going on is a quote mine from creationist sources.

Meanwhile, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich disclose, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented." Furthermore, "in the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."11 Apologetics.com

The Ehrlichs were making the point that the current rate of extinction greatly exceeds the current rate of speciation. It's also unclear as to what is meant by "animal species" in their text, but clearly the point is that field biologists are now commonly observing extinction events, and not seeing speciation events at anywhere near that rate. This is a far cry from saying that speciation has never happened. On other issues, the religious right smugly points out that Paul Ehrlich has been famously wrong. As I remarked to an attendee after the event, evolutionary biology has demonstrated itself beyond reasonable doubt, but cannot get to those who hold unreasonable (and, like ID guy, unreasoned) doubt.

catherine · 7 May 2005

"There was a rude, persistently obnoxious guy who came who apparently thought that "question and answer" meant "I can give my own lecture here." Perhaps that was Salvador's friend. He certainly seemed to have the "I can ignore any sufficient rebuttal to my previous point and just move on to another point" routine down pat. I'll call him "ID guy".

It is way amazing how many people interpret "Q and A in this way. Why do audiences put up with it, I wonder? Part of it is wanting to be "fair," or wanting to give everyone a chance to speak, when of course the other side doesn't want to be fair at all, and could give shit whether others get to speak. I've always liked moderators who quickly move to, "And your question is...?" or "Is there a question here?" Anyway, wish I could have been there and thanks for answering about how to decide. It does seem to be an event by event process for you.

Salvador T. Cordova · 13 May 2005

Well it turns out we have an operative there at Stanford. His cover was unfortunately blown by the following article. I don't believe however the obnoxious guy would be Tristan. The guy I dispatch was Tristan Abbey. For the record I don't approve of heckling tactics:

Michael Behe Speaks at Standford More evidence exists for intelligent design than for neo-Darwinism, and "grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination," according to Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael J. Behe. Speaking in the evening at Stanford Univeristy on May 2, 2005, Behe presented a primer for a growing theory of origins called intelligent design, which posits that certain features in nature are best explained by some sort of intelligent designer, rather than the purely neo-Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and random mutations. Tristan Abbey, director of ARN's student division, reports on the lecture and debates a fellow student about some of the issues.

Tristan is also Deputy Editor of The Standford Review one of the schools news papers. Tristan, was a former IDEA member, who now directs the other college organization known as IDURC, which was mentioned in Creationism's Trojan Horse (one of the most entertaining books I've ever read, I highly recommend it).

Salvador T. Cordova · 13 May 2005

For the record, Wesley, I dispatched Tristan to here your talk. I had nothing to do with the obnoxious guy, and further I encourage respectful treatment of public speakers including you. It does my side no good to have hecklers at such events.

Russell · 13 May 2005

...we have an operative there The guy I dispatch...

What a weird, weird world Salvador seems to inhabit. I can just picture him, hanging out at the local christian bar, ordering his martini shaken, not stirred... "The name's Cordova. Salvador Cordova."

Great White Wonder · 13 May 2005

Salvador [quote[For the record, Wesley, I dispatched Tristan to here your talk. Ah, so Tristan Abbey is one of your li'l script reciting shoeshine boys. Allegedly he is a "very experienced debater". Funny, to my recollection, he has never shown up here to describe for any of us the scientific theory of ID or explain how scientists could test any predictions of the theory. Why is that Salvador? Maybe Tristan could tell us how the scientific "theory" of intelligent design has "grown", as Michael Behe alleges it has. Is Tristan "experienced" enough to accomplish that task? Will you let him off his leash Salvador so he can try? Just for one day?

Despite his relative youth compared to other staff members, Tristan is miles ahead of his time when it comes to understanding the finer points of the creation - evolution issue, and being able to contend for them.

A veritable savant! Does young Tristan know how to log onto the Internet at his local library and find The Panda's Thumb? Here's some samples of Tristan's brilliance:

Basically, ID states that an intelligent designer is detectable in nature. There is no doubt in my mind that this putative designer is God for most, if not all, of the ID community, myself included.

Gosh, how scientific!

Not only is Darwinism unfalsifiable, it is also unprovable.

He's reading from David Heddle's script, the script that Heddle found in an outhouse in the backwoods of Arkansas. Evolution certainly is falsifiable, in theory. The problem, of course, is that evolution is occurring as surely as the Earth is rotating around the sun and the evidence to demonstrate these fact is not easily contested. But the brilliant Tristan Abbey is here to turn the world upside down! Biologists are idiots who think they're practicing science but it's just religion, says Tristan. Here's Tristan abusing his privileges at the Stanford Book Review to review a book that is five years old! http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXIV/Issue_7/grabbag/breview3.shtml

Wells has even been the subject of a libelous assault from the National Center for Science Education, a plain-sounding and faux-prestigious name for an ideologically-driven institution

What an ass. Note that at the bottom of this blurb Abbey describes himself as "the director of the Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center." What a pathetic joke.

textbooks claim that the earlier in development, the more similar are embryos of different kinds of animals, a false statement

Really? Embryos of different kinds of animals aren't more similar in appearance at earlier stages? Gosh. I guess it depends on what you're definition of "kinds" is. Funny how some things are so "obvious" to anyone whose "eyes" are open but then other things that seem "obvious" are more complex than they appear at first glance. It must be part of Tristan's deity's plan.

Devout opponents of Wells are almost religious in their tenacity, claiming that the Discovery Institute and the many other scientists and philosophers affiliated with intelligent design are trying to "bring God does not address intelligent design any- where in his book, and all efforts led by the Discovery Institute in amending curricula are only designed to critique neo-Darwinism, not to advance creationism or intelligent design (which are two separate things, mind you).

Now Tristan says creationism and intelligent design are two separate things. Huh. I wonder if Tristan can articulate the difference for us. He is allegedly "experienced" at that sort of thing. First he'd have to tell us what the scientific theory of "intelligent design" says and what are its testable predictions. That would be interesting. Salvador, will you let Tristan out of his crib so he can visit this site and clarify his statements on the record? Or are you afraid that Young Tender Tristan will fxck up like your clown friends did in Kansas?

Too often those whose careers are tied to evolution circle the wagons and shut down scientific dissent, ruining the careers of good scientists who are critical of the reigning orthodoxy.

Can Tristan name one "good scientist" whose "career was ruined" merely because he or she criticized evolutionary biology? Or is Tristan just a sleazy ID peddling evangelist who smears scientists to please his preachers? Salvador, as Tristan's coach, you must have good answers for all these questions. But we'd really like to hear from Tristan. Please allow him to speak with us.

shiva · 13 May 2005

The procession keeps getting funnier by the day. Dembski and then Salvador and now Tristan. Who's next? Major Major Major?