The Great Debate
by Ellery Schempp, Ph.D.
I attended tonight at Boston University The Great Debate: "Should public schools teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution?"
The Debate Participants:
Affirmative:
Here are my impressions:
(please note that quotes are approximations from hurried notes, my gist is here)
As a long-term member of NCSE and supporter of Genie Scott, and reader at Pandas Thumb and allied sites, there was little new. Scott made the usual arguments that ID is not science, that ID is "creationism lite", that ID posits an "unlimited, unconstrained designer", and is playing games about "who the designer is". That the DI is only interested in teaching "evidence against evolution", but has nothing positive to offer.
Scott said that Behe has lost faith in "intelligent design" as a phrase and is now promoting "sudden emergence theory". First I heard of this. Scott scored good points when she said that ID cannot answer the questions of how? and when? I thought the when--the time frame for "intelligent meddling" could have been expanded.
Scott: "We know designed tools in archeology because we know that is what humans do, how they do this, and why--the purpose. But we do not know why or how the bacterium flagellum arose." "It is an artificial dichotomy to assert that there are intelligent causes and natural causes." "The SETI argument from ID is tiresome; sure, scientists look for patterns to distinguish a signal from noise, but this in no way shows that there is an 'intelligent designer'." "Labeling -isms is a rhetorical strategy--Darwinism, evolutionism--but such labels are not a substitute for a transcendent understanding."
Dembski is a tall, lanky figure who speaks without notes and wanders on stage. He started out quote mining from John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner (GK), The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. (Yale University Press, 2005), to the effect that "the scientific consensus of small genetic mutations accumulating to new species is an illusion, as Scott says." "We need a radically new understanding, according to GK." "Evolution is like a woman who goes for plastic surgery multiple times; after all the cutting and pasting... it is all the same..." I didn't hear this last phrase clearly, so this is not a quote--the audience giggled. I was lost wondering how plastic surgery fit into the argument. Surely this was a dig against women.
Dembski: "The study of patterns in nature is best explained by intelligence... archeology and SETI show this." "There are reliable ways of distinguishing between random/chance structures and purpose structures." Dembski used the phrases "design detection/design inference" many times without ever once saying how to detect. The phrase "design inference" seemed to me to be hollow--because my tomato plants are wilted and have yellow-tipped leaves, I infer/deduce from previous experience that a frost hit them. Dembski uses the term to mean "there must have been a purpose, therefore ID."
Dembski: "in any other context, the merit of ID would be recognized. It is the evolutionists that prevent this." {not a quote, but the gist as I heard him speak}. "Evolution is a theory of processes, going from point A to point B. This theory is not working; it is not detailed; Darwin had no idea of the internal structure of a cell."
James Trefil spoke next: "There are external tests, and it is interesting to contrast the legal position of witnesses in the courts to what IDists proclaim. The courts have set up rigorous criteria for 'expert witnesses'; they must meet the tests of recognized evidence, facts widely viewed as established and verifiable, and independent of any vested interest." Trefil contrasted this judiciary requirement to ID, saying that ideas to be "presented in school classrooms should not have a lower standard".
Trefil went on to discuss how gold nuggets form, that random accumulations of gold atoms would be ridiculously improbable, but that we understand geothermal and mineralogical processes now and understand how they form. I think his point was that previously un-understood matters have yielded to scientific investigations over the decades.
Sisson, a lawyer in the Philip Johnson mold, spoke on the "tyranny of the majority" re evolution. I thought this curious. His view was that there are these unconscionable, atheist elites, and he doesn't like them. Evolution is an elitist notion, and he emphasized "as a lay person" and quoted lines from three textbooks to the effect that "complexity is unexplainable" thus ID is right. An argument to a jury, perhaps. That Dawkins and Darwin have it all wrong, that "facilitated variation" is a brief without a proper rebuttal in a court. ID is in the court of public opinion. {I imagine him as a prosecutor--to hell with the truth, we'll get a conviction of these pervos, drugos, evos.}
Sisson said that "life is so extraordinary", but the evolutionists have "no Bible in their set of data [sic]". He went on to say that he could refute every one of the pages in a large stack on his desk, printed out from MIT's or BU's Bio 106 course, but he did not have sufficient time. The comment about "no Bible in their set of data" was especially telling.
I was particularly interested in the audience reactions. Comments were accepted from about 20 audience members, lining up to the left (affirm) and right (negative).
Some excerpts:
1. Atheism is a religion that denies a higher power. Archeology shows this.
2. We can infer design from the fact that the fundamental physical constants are tuned. {I think--the fundamental constants are such that they allow life forms and cranky consciousnesses to form--if the constants were different, we would not be here to argue the matter!}
3. Kevin: as an English major, I see many subjective interpretations of poetry and literature. Isn't ID the same?
4. Katie: evolution presents a one-sided view. ID is a good balance.
5. no name: Evolution is not random; evolution is the cumulative effect of traits kept and lost. Negative traits give way to positives. Isn't this the way in society in general?
6. no name: There may be equal theories, but the presupposition of a higher power is an argument against using taxpayer dollars to fund ID. The First Amendment, etc.
7. no name: I am confused between how ID is detected and how ID is installed. ID seems to offer no explanation of the mechanisms or the principles involved when the "designer" chooses to act. {me, too; the audience applauded}
8. Ryan: evolutionists can't handle the truth; the pyramids, the Egyptians, therefore ID. {my mind lost contact during this}.
9. Mathers: What do IDists hope to achieve? Dembski admitted that it was "exposure". Why did DI/Dembski hire an expensive PR firm in Washington, a firm that also represents big oil firms? Isn't this a sign that ID/Dembski/Behe/DI are in league with PR perceptions rather than scientific ways of thinking? {I have no idea about the allegations.}
10. no name: In 10 years, we humans will certainly be able to create a primitive cell in the lab. What then, ID?
Overall, I think the audience of mostly undergrads was about equally divided. There was no poll.
I was disappointed that the pro-evo side did not make a strong case for what evolution does explain, and beautifully. Why mammals have a common blood structure (Types A,B,O also in chimps) based on cells, in contrast to circulating proteins (cf. hemocyanin, a copper-based porphyrin oxygen-carrier found in e.g. lobsters). How human embryos have tails until late in development. How large mammalian herbivores could only develop after the evolution of grasses. There is a wonderful story of what evolution does give us an understanding of, and the legalisms (nonsense about complexity; specified, irreducible complexity, supernatural interventions, biology as distinct from chemistry, etc.) of ID short-changes us.
I introduced myself to Dembski. He shook my hand happily. I said, "You know that I started the Supreme Court case about Bible-reading in the public schools. I oppose everything you say." He took it in good stride and mumbled.
Ellery Schempp was the primary student plaintiff in Abington School District v. Schempp, which declared mandatory bible readings in public schools unconstitutional. He is a physicist residing in Boston.
Editor's Note: This was promoted from a comment that didn't belong where it was made.
131 Comments
kay · 3 November 2005
As to why the pro-evo side didn't make those points: a lot of evolution advocates assume that the publice is more informed than it actually is. Ask a humanities graduate what's the gist of the laws of thermodynamics, and you'll only get TANSTAAFL from people who aren't ashamed to admit they read Heinlein. :)
KL · 3 November 2005
Wait: didn't the Discovery Institute just say in Dover that they were NOT for teaching this in public schools? Why is Dembski speaking for it? I'm confused...
Ron Okimoto · 3 November 2005
Bagaaz · 3 November 2005
I wish someone would raise the point that ID is unfalsifiable. In the Kitzmiller trial Behe said that if someone grew bacteria lacking flagella in a lab and selected for some kind of flagella device and one evolved then ID would be falsified. However, in such an experiment it would be impossible to rule out a supernatural designer doing the work. ID is therefore not science.
Dr. Kate · 3 November 2005
theonomo · 3 November 2005
I was also at the debate and was able to get a seat in the front row. I am sympathetic to ID, but my impression was that the ID side lost this debate, mostly due to the incompetence of Sisson.
Here are some of my thoughts:
1) Edward Sisson, the pro-ID lawyer was absolutely terrible. He had ten minutes to make the opening statement and he spent the entire time talking about where he went to grad school, how he got involved in the theater, how he became a producer of a theater company, how they put on a show in Germnay, how he then decided to go to law school, how he made partner at a firm, how he got married, etc. etc. This was all evidentally supposed to show us that his background was not that of a fundamentalist Christian. He finally said something like "and now let me turn to the science" and right at that moment the bell rang, indicating he had one minute left, and he spun around, looking bewildered and asked "what does that mean?" He then apologized for not having time to get to the science and sat down. It was an absolutely pathetic showing. He would do much the same with his closing remarks, during which he claimed that he didn't have time to go through and refute all the evidence in the various textbooks he was holding up. I was extremely disappointed in his performance. I don't know why they didn't get someone competent from the Discovery Institute. In fact, the undergraduate journalism kid who spoke for the ID side was infinitely better than Sisson. The fact that Sisson was so unprepared and so wandering in his thoughts reflected terribly on ID.
2) The debate was impossible for the ID side to win, anyway, b/c ID is not mature enough to be taught in public high schools, and even the Discovery Institue acknowledges this. So the pro-ID side was stuck defending a position they were not eager to defend, while the anti-ID side could score simple and credible points about how we should just stick to the consensus in science when it comes to what we teach in high school and leave the ID stuff for later in a person's education if they are interested in pursuing it. The pro-ID side ended up doing the best thing they could in that situation, which was to defend ID generally and not mention high schools much at all. Dembski, for instance, did not use any of his time to discuss whether ID should be taught in high school and instead explained what ID is, how we can detect intelligence in SETI, anthropology, what specified complexity is, etc. A student who spoke during the open mic time later said that he had emailed Dembski asking him what he hoped to accomplish at the debate and Dembski had simply said "exposure". I believe it. Dembski simply used this as a chance to talk about ID.
3) The anti-ID side was well-prepared and clear. Eugenie Scott spoke first and she came accross as intelligent and competent. She also made points that were easy to understand. Given that each person only had 10 minutes or so to speak, it is important to get a couple simple and clear points in, and she was able to do this. She was on-target and well-prepared. The contrast with Sisson, who had just spoken before her, was tremendous. I cannot overstate her contrast with Sisson.
4) The two undergraduate kids were about equal in their performance and persuasiveness.
5) Trefil did well for the anti-ID side. He had the advantage of being clear, well-prepared, and also chatty and likeable.
6) The open-mic comments from the students were about evenly divided in terms of persuasiveness and performance for both sides of the debate.
7) The original post in this thread didn't get Dembski right on the quote about a woman. What he said was something like this: "Evolution is like a model, a woman, who has had a lot of plastic surgery. She looks good from far away, but when you get up close she looks cut and pasted together and isn't that attractive." This got a good laugh from the audience.
8) I am still sympathetic to ID and I don't think these sorts of questions can be resolved in such a time-constrained format, but at least you should make the best case you can in the time you are given, and Sisson, who spoke twice for ID just didn't know what he was talking about, and worse, wasn't prepared anyway. He also did some purely stupid things, like admit that he hadn't read one of the books he was critiquing all the way through, admit that he doesn't have a science background, and claim that he could go through 600 pages of class notes from a BU class on Evolution, and refute Evolution page by page, but he just didn't have time to do it here tonight. He also used statements like "it's just so amazingly incredibly complex that it just *couldn't* have happened by chance" which strikes me as the kind of argument a fifth grader in favor of ID might make, but I was hoping for better. I don't know why Sisson was the main guy making the opening and closing remarks for ID when Dembski was on their panel. Dembski only got to speak once and Sisson spoke twice, which was really the wrong way for them to go about it.
On the whole a very frustrating experience for me.
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Dr. Kate,
I cannot dispute whether Bagaaz's point is beautiful. But it is too simplistic. Without commenting on whether Behe's ID is falsifiable, I just want to point out a common error: Responses along the lines of "regardless of what happens, it is impossible to rule out a supernatural designer" are not relevant.
To falsify biological ID, if it is falsifiable, you do not have to prove that "a designer could not have designed it." That is a red herring tantamount to saying you have to disprove God. No, what you have to do is show that there is no evidence for design. If you demonstrate how a flagellum evolves--then someone could still say that God did it that way--but that wouldn't be ID they were defending, it would simply be theism.
Evolution is not immune to a similar criticism: "regardless of what happens, it is impossible to rule out evolution." My favorite example is Mars. We see water and methane. Assume abiogenesis has occurred. Evolution, being a science that can make predictions, should have something to say about what Martian life might be like, but as far as I know it is silent. Will it be single celled? Multicelled? As complex as insects? Silence. In other words, it can accommodate all eventualities.
shiva · 3 November 2005
jeffw · 3 November 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 November 2005
MattDP · 3 November 2005
Heddle, your point is nonsensical right from the get go. You say you won't comment on whether ID is falsifiable then proceed to explain how to falsify it (by your rules, specifically). So either comment on falsifiablity or dont, but dont say you won't and then do.
You obviously will not be satisfied until science patches every little gap of knowledge and if and when a gap is filled you will simply point to another and say, well there's still this, could be designed, prove it's not. In the meantime doing no work whatsoever yourself to prove that something IS designed. Looks designed, appears designed, leave it to the evos to prove otherwise. The very definition of a free lunch for you. And of course, complete BS.
Evolution can be easily disproven in a variety of ways; the fact that you do not seem to understand this speaks volumes.
As far as life on Mars is concerned, evolution simply says life could evolve if the right conditions exist. ID of course, says what? Well, anything it wants. The designer could presumably design life that could live on Mars, right? If not, why not? And if so, what would its nature be? Unfortunately, ID does not choose silence as often as it should and we are regularly subjected to droning nonsense like yours.
bill · 3 November 2005
Tevildo · 3 November 2005
K.E. · 3 November 2005
Bob Davis · 3 November 2005
John_B · 3 November 2005
Why it's impossible, bill? I don't think soo!
Mycroftdavis · 3 November 2005
"Ask a humanities graduate what's the gist of the laws of thermodynamics, and you'll only get TANSTAAFL from people who aren't ashamed to admit they read Heinlein. :)"
Why would anyone be ashamed to admit reading Heinlein? :) Seriously, many people wise enough to consider that the brainwashing religion they were plastered with as children got to the point at which they could make such a realization due to Heinlein's influence, not to mention other science fiction writers who dared to state the blasphemous truth that other explanations exist beside the ones taught in Kansas tent meetings by comb-overed blowhards.
Christopher Letzelter · 3 November 2005
Professor Schempp,
this is a little off-topic, but thank you for your action in Abington v Schempp. I attended public schools thirty years ago and am glad I didn't have to sit through state-imposed demoninational lectures on theology.
I also wish Dembski had appeared as a witness at Kitzmiller v Dover - he would have driven the judge nuts, I think, kind of like Bonsell did with his apparent perjury.
Chris
Christopher Letzelter · 3 November 2005
oops - I meant "denominational." A Freudian slip...
sanjait · 3 November 2005
"other explanations exist beside the ones taught in Kansas tent meetings by comb-overed blowhards."
I think it's "combed-over" but I could be wrong.
Re Martian evolution, we don't expect to find life there like ours, since the planet is frozen. As was alluded to, if there were life there, we would expect (nay, evolutionary theory explicitly posits) that we will find a nested heirarchical pattern of descent there. As on earth, this pattern, as evidenced by comparative biology, archaeology and comparative genomics on earth, is the heart of evolution. It does make specific predictions. The "rabbits in the precambrian" test is actually not so specific, if we could find anything that didn't fit in our tree, we would be screwed. That would include higehr the appearance of higher organisms in the fossil record where they shouldn't be, or modern organisms that are entirely dissimilar to known patterns observed in the biochemistry and genetics of other modern organisms. If organisms had genes that didn't fit our "similar with modifications" scheme, comparative genomics would be on flipped on its head. Alas, these things haven't happened, and we don't expect them to happen, which is why we are dismissive of ID.
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Common descent? You call that a prediction? It is about as specific as my saying "on Mars, a stone will fall governed by the same laws of gravity as on earth."
The rabbit (or human) fossil in the pre-Cambrian is not a falsification test of evolution. Or, more precisely, if that is representative of the best evolution has to offer for falsifiability tests, then evolution is not falsifiable.
If you found simple organism (on earth) with a totally unique genome, would that falsify evolution or would you claim abiogenesis occurred at least twice?
GT(N)T · 3 November 2005
"No, what you have to do is show that there is no evidence for design."
Bad logic David. Demonstrating 'no evidence' is not the same thing as falsifying. To falsify ID, ID would have to make predictions that are testable. ID hasn't done that. ID appears unable to do that. ID fails to rise to the level of science.
jeffw · 3 November 2005
Ginger Yellow · 3 November 2005
theonomo: Thanks for your balanced and informative description of the debate. I had to laugh, however, when you said this: "He also used statements like "it's just so amazingly incredibly complex that it just *couldn't* have happened by chance" which strikes me as the kind of argument a fifth grader in favor of ID might make, but I was hoping for better." ID as propounded by Behe or Dembski is precisely that argument cloaked in fancy mathematics to make it sound more impressive.
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
K.E. · 3 November 2005
Yes that member (theonomo) of the ID choir wasn't happy with a couple of the conductors but maybe next time.
Trouble is the best they have are delusional pseudo scientists and hack lawyers, does the word "denial" mean anything to these people.
shiva · 3 November 2005
jeffw · 3 November 2005
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Jeffw,
It is true that a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify evolution, but that doesn't make it a good test. Just like following Al Sharpton around to see if he floats off the planet is a not good falsification test for gravity, even though it would, in fact, falsify gravity. And if the only way we could test gravity would be to watch for people floating away, we would say that gravity was not, in any real sense, falsifiable.
What does the fact that we never found an organsim with a unique genome make it moot? We have never found a pre-Cambrian rabbit, but you don't seem to find that question moot.
At any rate, it is a question to probe how biologists might respond to such a find. I appreciate that you gave a honest answer.
jeffw · 3 November 2005
CJ O'Brien · 3 November 2005
Heddle,
Science has its conservative side.
The putative "rabbit in the Cambrian" would sure as hell rattle some cages, and there would be intense scutiny, you'd better believe it. Evolutionary theory wouldn't just fold up the tent, of course. But the fact that the individuals involved now in the research would have incentive to find alternative explanations doesn't make an entire theory unfalsifiable, does it?
The answers to the questions you're asking, as you're well aware, depend on so many unknown particulars of the hypothetical discovery as to be meaningless.
The fact remains that there are classes of possible empirical findings that would falsify neo-Darwinian theory, if corroborated. In short, we do not expect to find lineages (extant or in the fossil record) that are not related to an earlier lineage. In over a century of evolution-informed research across numerous fields, this expectation has been borne out. Time and time again.
You're confusing "unfalsified" with "unfalsifiable."
Skemono · 3 November 2005
I'm surprised nobody's pounced on this comment yet:
Common descent? You call that a prediction? It is about as specific as my saying "on Mars, a stone will fall governed by the same laws of gravity as on earth."
Um, yes in fact. That's the point. If evolution is universally true, we'd expect life to follow the same basic patterns predicted by evolution on one planet as on another. Exactly as with gravity.
Doran · 3 November 2005
The ninth commentors name was "Matthew" (being myself). Just check on the August 5, 2005 posting here on the Thumb about the DI and a beltway PR firm. Its Creative Response Consulting (CRC), though i cant immediately remember what the acronym stands for. I also had a further comment regarding the so called evidence against evolution, via bacterial flagellum and blood clotting. There already on this site has bene much discussion of secretion systems as a pathway to produce flagella, and as we have seen from Behe's "rigorous peer-reviewed book," that a foremost expert in blood clotting found his argument to be comple garbage. To finish, I remarked that ID proponents keep coming back with the same examples when they have already been explained, and they are unwilling to realize then been beaten again and again and again (for rhetorical effect).
As a further not, I emailed a number of Boston area biology departments about this particular event, though recieving few responses, I was happy to hear that some BU professor encouraged their students to attend.
Flint · 3 November 2005
As I understand it, evolution (the theory) implies that we find genetic and molecular relationships among organisms to be extremely tightly constrained within certain parameters. We're not just talking about a rabbit in the precambrian, we're talking about necessary similarities and trends in the DNA of *every cell* of *every organism* we can *or ever will* find on the planet. And if these similarities and trends were NOT the case without ANY known exception, very little if anything biologists do would make the slightest sense. Indeed, it could be justifiably said that in that case, there would be no science of biology at all. Much like there would be no grammar if every sentence followed a pattern unique to that sentence and no system of rules could be derived.
So I don't think David Heddle really understands how pervasively evolution is tested, assumed, and in fact *necessary* for life as we know it, every which way.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 November 2005
CJ O'Brien · 3 November 2005
Oh, I think he understands it just fine.
He just fervently wishes it wasn't so.
ID as Pinocchio?
I like it. It's a puppet that wishes it were real, and you can easily tell when it's lying.
Forgive. I'm just always looking for the elusive "idea that fits on a t-shirt."
morbius · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
BB FCD,
Is it really too much for you to understand that while a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify evolution it is not, in fact, a falsification test? I believe most people in here understand that, but you seem to think it is some sort of glaring inconsistency.
Here is yet another example: Instability of atoms would falsify quantum mechanics. However, studying atoms to watch for their electrons to perform a death spiral into the nucleus is not a falsification test for QM. Get it?
And have I ever claimed (provide the link) that evolution is not testable?
Morbius:
Do you understand when I said "if pre-Cambrian.." I was being helpful to your cause? I wasn't grasping at all, let alone desperately. I was pointing out, in effect, that evolutionists who mention that pre-Cambrian mammals as a falsification test of evolution look downright stupid. You might as well say that only a miracle could falsify evolution. That is why I also added, in a comment earlier, that when we discussed this before, others provided more reasonable tests.
But no, in spite of the clear meaning, and in spite of the fact that I stated others had provided more reasonable tests, you assumed that I meant that I believed this was the only possible test. Try to read more carefully next time.
Be more specific about atomic theory and your belief that it could no longer be falsified. Atomic theory is based on Quantum Electrodynamics, a theory that continues to be tested. Unless you mean, simply, the theory that atoms exist. I hope not, because I have seveeral books on atomic theory, and they go well beyond the statement that atoms exist.
Jeff Guinn · 3 November 2005
Having followed this discussion, and others like it for some time, it seems to me debating the validity of naturalistic evolution and whether ID/Creationism deserves mention in a science class misses the fundamental point.
Which goes something like this: (my apologies in advance to the true scientists in this crowd, for I am nothing more than a reasonably well read amateur)
Science is essentially hypothetico-deductive -- all hypotheses considered to be within the realm of rational inquiry carry with them consequent deductions. That is, for the theory under consideration to be scientific, it must have at least one consequence deduced from the theory, the consequence must be amenable to investigation, and the investigation must confirm all such consequences.
Does naturalistic evolution have any deductive consequences? Quite a few, as it turns out. For instance:
-- The earth must be very old (Darwin, BTW, was the very first person to predict that the Earth must be at least several hundred million years old. Prevailing estimates stopped at the 20,000 year mark.)
-- All reproductively isolated populations must diverge over time.
-- Inheritance must be particulate, not blended. (Darwin's prediction, contra prevailing wisdom, prior Mendel's confirmatory observations becoming widespread knowledge)
-- All life shares a common ancestor (contrary to Lamarck and the Bible)
As we learned more, say, about the genome, even more deductive consequences showed up:
-- Genetic relatedness must largely mirror the Linnean classification.
-- Mutation rates must be consistent with the Earth's age and the appearance of fossils.
There are many more deductive consequences attending naturalistic evolution (in fact, there might very well be more for evolution than any other scientific discipline), but you get the idea.
In contrast, ID/Creationism does not have even one deductive consequence. Nada. Zilch. None.
And until it has even one, it simply isn't science. ID may be ground breaking speculation, or just tarted-up Biblical literalism, but it hardly matters which. But what it most certainly is not is science.
Which, if I were to debate this, is how I would lead off. While many polls show significant numbers of Americans don't find naturalistic evolution persuasive, Americans are much more favorable to the idea of science in general. In that light, ID simply doesn't belong.
Unless, that is, Salvadore, or Mr. Heddle, et al, can provide just one example of something that MUST be true in order for ID to be true.
jeffw · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
Ed Darrell · 3 November 2005
I'm surprised that a partner in a major law firm would take the side Mr. Sisson took. Frankly, it makes me wonder about his law firm.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
Ed Darrell · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
qetzal · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Ed, I am just taking the words of others, on here, who propose it as a falsification test.
As for the NSF, while we all (presumably) agree that science is horribly underfunded, and that NSF grants are hard to come by (I am fortunate enough to have had two of them) I submit a rational doable make-or-break test of any major theory would be viewed favorably. But as you pointed out, pre-Cambrian rabbits is a horrible test, and it would not be funded. That's just one reason why the whole "pre-Cambrian mammal business" should be dropped from discussion, period.
As for any funding verifying ID--while I am not a cosmologist but I view all modern cosmology funding as funding science that can strengthen or weaken cosmological ID--even though it is not proposed as such.
qetzal,
I NEVER said evolution wasn't falsifiable, I said that in circumstances such as the life on Mars question it is subject to the same type of criticism as ID: anything fits the theory. And I wasn't the one who first brought up the pre-Cambrian rabbit business, that was Bayesian Bouffant, FCD in #54944 on this thread. Gee, some of you are incapable of even a mylar thin layer of abstraction.
mark · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
jeffw · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
morbius · 3 November 2005
jeffw · 3 November 2005
Morbius, just curious - how old are you?
morbius · 3 November 2005
Old enough to know what it means when someone starts asking such questions.
Ginger Yellow · 3 November 2005
"I said that in circumstances such as the life on Mars question it is subject to the same type of criticism as ID: anything fits the theory."
As has been hinted above, this is absurd. Evolution is a theory to explain the diversity of life on earth. It may or may not be true of hypothetical life elsewhere. Anything fits ID when it is applied to life on earth, let alone hypothetical life.
Bulman · 3 November 2005
H. Humbert · 3 November 2005
Evolution can make one firm prediction about Martian life--it should appear distinctly different than life on Earth and with its own distinct evolutionary history.
Finding whale or elephant bones on Mars, I think, would be a significant blow to evolution.
What does ID have to say about the forms alien life might take?
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Gee Bulman, I see you really grasp the concept. You must have a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science.
H. Humbert,
I can't answer your question from a biological ID perspective, not being a biological IDer, but from a cosmological ID perspective I would say that they would be very similar to us. Carbon-based, on a rocky planet with water in all three phases, and a middle aged sun, between two arms at a stable radius in a spiral galaxy. Oh, they would be in the same general time that we are too--that is they wouldn't be from much earlier in the universe.
morbius · 3 November 2005
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Ginger Yellow,
Hypothetically, what if were discovered that three billion years ago a meteor struck earth and the resulting debris transported microbes to Mars. (A not implausible scenario, I might add.) Given three billion years of free reign on the planet, does evolution have anything to say about what that life would be like, beyond the obvious, that it would exhibit clear evidence of common descent? Or would you still say that evolution says nothing about life on Mars, even if the life originated on earth?
Bulman · 3 November 2005
qetzal · 3 November 2005
Reed A. Cartwright · 3 November 2005
The comments have gotten away from begin about the stuff that happened at BU. Please go to our forum, linked to on the main page, if you want to participate in a long back and forth about ID. If the topic drift continues, I may close the thread.
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
David Heddle · 3 November 2005
Reed,
sorry, our comments came together--feel free to delete my last (and this) comment. (I realize you don't need my permission.)
morbius · 3 November 2005
Ginger Yellow · 3 November 2005
Apologies to Reed, but: "Hypothetically, what if were discovered that three billion years ago a meteor struck earth and the resulting debris transported microbes to Mars. (A not implausible scenario, I might add.) Given three billion years of free reign on the planet, does evolution have anything to say about what that life would be like, beyond the obvious, that it would exhibit clear evidence of common descent? Or would you still say that evolution says nothing about life on Mars, even if the life originated on earth?"
If the premise is taken as a given, then of course evolution would have something to say, since the Martian biodiversity should have been governed by the same proceses. I'm not a biologist but here's a few that make sense to me. Provided the organisms were fossilisable (or whatever the word is) you would expect the fossil record to exhibit the same pattern of nested trees and incremental changes in morphology that we see on earth. You would also expect the genetic variation from earthlings to be broadly similar to the variation found on earth between bacteria (or whatever organisms might have split off around 3bn years ago) and other organisms. You would expect any organisms in similar ecological niches on earth (should any exist) to share some specialist characteristics with the Martians - as for example we find marsupial equivalents of most broad conventional mammalian types.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2005
Osmo · 3 November 2005
David Heddle -
The mistake you are making is addressed by Ed Brayton (that wascally nonscientist) here:
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/09/blogging_the_dover_trial.php
He's missing a crucial distinction by conflating Behe's argument for ID with ID itself. The notion that an intelligent designer was involved is not in any way falsifiable. There is no conceivable set of data that could falsify that proposition. But specific arguments that purport to point to such a designer can be falsified, and it's important to distinguish here between facts and theories. Behe's argument offers both factual claims and a theoretical or explanatory claim. It goes like this:
Factual claim: Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that if you took out any single component of the system, the system would fail to function.
Factual claim: Irreducibly complex systems could not have evolved step by step because the intermediate or precursor systems would not have been functional.
Explanatory claim: Therefore, when we find an irreducibly complex system, we know that it must have been designed from scratch and came into existence all in one step.
Only the explanatory claim is an explicit statement in support of ID, but one can still falsify the argument if one shows that either of the two factual claims it is based upon is false. For instance, when we look at Behe's example of the blood clotting cascade, we can falsify it simply by looking at the first factual claim. Is the blood clotting cascade irreducibly complex? The answer is no. There are animals who lack one of the components of the system, yet their blood clots just fine. Dolphins, for example, lack Hageman factor (or Factor 12). By Behe's definition of irreducible complexity, this should be impossible. The fact that it's not shows that this is not, in fact, an irreducibly complex system.
Likewise on the bacterial flagellum, Behe's favorite example of irreducible complexity, the fact that one subset of the system works well for another function shows that the second factual claim in Behe's argument is not necessarily true. We have lots of examples in molecular biology of components for one system being adapted or co-opted for use in a different system. Even Behe would admit as much. Lots of examples, for instance, of a given gene duplication resulting in the production of two proteins, one of which is then coopted for a different function in a system it was not originally involved with inside the organism. So when we see that the flagellum includes a subset that functions well in a different type of system, we can reasonably infer that perhaps it was coopted in exactly the same way. Add this to the fact that we in fact have multiple different types of flagella at work in the bacterial world, suggesting that rather than being irreducibly complex there are multiple different ways to get to the same result, and you have good reason to think that Behe's second example fails because the second factual claim may well not be true.
So Miller is in fact correct when he says that ID is not falsifiable, while specific arguments for ID have been falsified.
It's a fairly simple explanation of what is going wrong with your thinking. You rely on the same confusion that Ed was replying to on a habitual basis, so hopefully this will clear up your posts a bit in the future.
P.S. So help me God if you try to respond to Ed by discussing the "theory-ladeness" of facts or the oversimplification of his use of "fact" and "theory" I'm going to reach through my computer screen and punch you.
Pete Dunkelberg · 3 November 2005
I'm coming in late on this and haven't read every comment, but in reply to some of the earlier ones It must be said again that if you start with a bacterium with nothing like a flagellum and get something very much like flagella as we know them in just two or ten years, that isn't evolution. That's a miracle.
And those who want to teach ID must solve the problem of There is no ID (scientifically) to teach. There is nothing in it that can be put in a science lesson plan and not be promptly exposed as fake science. Why do you think the DI wants to change the definition of science, as if it were up to them?
another observer · 4 November 2005
How was "the comment about "no Bible in their set of data" ... especially telling"? What he meant by saying that was that the ID people were making an argument only from the very data that the anti-ID people were using, so that, in other words, the ID people were not using a Bible to make their case. It was his was of saying that ID is not in fact a religion, but you seem to have twisted it around to suggest that he was complaining that the Bible is being ignored.
Ellery · 4 November 2005
I am glad to see PandasThumb friends are here in Boston. Thanks to Doran (Matthew), Theonomo, for enlargements/corrections to my post. Thanks to Christopher Letzelter for kind remarks--but surely "demoninational" is the right word--religion has always imagined demons, and faith-denominations warn us against them, according to some text-belief.
Applause to Morbius; your description of Dalton's understanding of atoms is first class. I think you will enjoy this website: http://www.re-discovery.org/
Thanks to the Mods--Chris Reed and Dave Thomas--giving me 'guest contributor' status. The PandasThumb community are great for informed comment on science and society and concern for 'separation of church and state' values.
K.E. · 4 November 2005
Thats a new one.. another observer
ID is not a religion AND as we all know, not a sciece.
Gee what is it then ?
[insert any Fundamentalist] apologetics ?
I'm confused.
another observer · 4 November 2005
K.E., you are confused, indeed. My point is not whether ID is a science or a religion or whatever (surely there are other possibilities, though). My point is that the original poster reporting on the debate did not understand the debator's point when he said "there is no bible in their data".
Doran · 4 November 2005
As a clarification on my "exposure" comment during the Audience commentary time. First see my blog for a short entry on it. The longer question which I had posed to Bill Dembski in the afore-mentioned email was, that since the DI does not advocate officially teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms, what did he wish to accomplish in a session titled, "Should public schools teach Intelligent Design along with Evolution?" The one word answer was a bit galling in its lack of etiquette, but also in its obvious message. He knows that regardless of whether he does well or poorly, makes a sensible case or absolutely bombs, merely showing up is a WIN. This is why scientists boycotted the Kansas hearings and why so many professionals are frustrated that ten minutes of creationist garbage would sometimes take hours of explanation to properly untangled for a lay audience.
I could not help but imagine Intelligent Design and its associated attitudes towards science as a virus, that is fatal, not physically but intellectually. ID proponents like Dembski are the carries, spreading the infection to any they come across, and those with weaker "immune systems" succumb to the disease. There are two things one should do to overcome this virus, isolate it and inoculate the population against it. The first is to continue the boycotting of these "debates" (I have learned my lesson) and the second consists of improving science education in this country so that students have the tool set to see through this garbage for what it is.
GO STROS!
Oh and does anyone have an recommendations for a graduating senior whose interested in this area of pro-science activism?
ellery · 4 November 2005
to 'another observer'
Not so. Sisson was very clear that his world outlook requires a "book" where everything is black and white. He clearly desired the Bible. But he is ignorant of its internal contradictions. Science is very democratic, in the sense that any good evidence or idea can be evaluated on its merits.
Supernatural "authority" is merely one claim to truth, and historically not much reliable.
There are so many claims to know the "one true god". In choosing between 1000 or more organized faith beliefs, there is less than 1 chance in 1000 that I could get it right. Priests obviously have their own agendas.
No writer in biblical times had the slightest clue about geology or sex, and the claim that they knew about "morality" 2000 years ago is absurd on its face. Sisson would tell us that some book written 2000 years ago contains all the truth of human relationships, geopolitical relations, science, disease, life and death, and priests/pastors are our best guide in our lives. It is noteworthy that among the thousands of priests supported by the believers, not a one has made any worthwhile contribution to medicine or tax law or science/world understanding or morality. Sisson is not only ignorant about biology, but dangerously stupid about heresy and "morality".
His passing acquaintance with truth seems rather accidental.
Registered User · 4 November 2005
P.S. So help me God if you try to respond to Ed by discussing the "theory-ladeness" of facts or the oversimplification of his use of "fact" and "theory" I'm going to reach through my computer screen and punch you.
How about if we get Lenny's pizze delivery boy to simply drop a flaming bag of doggy doo-doo on Heddle's front porch?
ellery · 4 November 2005
to Doran>
<
I have a number of connections and suggestions. Email me via the moderators to connect.
morbius · 4 November 2005
David Heddle · 4 November 2005
morbius · 4 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 November 2005
Hey Heddle, are you going to answer my question, or aren't you:
Why is your religious opinion any more authoritative than anyone else's? Why should anyone pay any more attention to your religious opinions than they should to mine, my next door neighbor's, my car mechanic's, my veterinarian's, or the kid who delivers my pizzas?
Please be as specific as possible.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 4 November 2005
qetzal · 4 November 2005
qetzal · 4 November 2005
Osmo · 4 November 2005
David Heddle -
Ok, so let's examine this in a little bit more detail. ID as an explanatory theory is unfalsifiable. It's simply untestable. However, IDists make arguments where they say "science lacks a satisfactory account of X;... therefore ID"
Most scientists/philosophers will respond to that by pointing out that the ID explanation is not meaningfully testable/falsifiable. Then here comes fellows like your self who say, "ID is too testable." Well, you're wrong, but in a subtle way.
ID qua the theory is untestable, which is why those people are asserting. ID as a shorthand label for the entirety of an IDist argument might be falsifiable. In this case, by showing there is a satisfacory account of X in terms of natural processes would show their argument wrong. It isn't ID as theory that's been falsified, it's the premise in the argument leading to its invocation that has been shown wrong.
So when someone says "ID is unfalsifiable" here, you would do well to understand what they are referring to, and not miss the point by showing that specific kinds of ID arguments rest on premises that are theoretically falsiable. They're asserting that the ID explanation in an ID argument - the supposed theory - is unfalsifiable. They're correct, as far as that goes.
another observer · 4 November 2005
In reply to my point about what Sisson meant by saying "there is no Bible in their data", ellery wrote:
"Not so. Sisson was very clear that his world outlook requires a "book" where everything is black and white. He clearly desired the Bible. But he is ignorant of its internal contradictions. Science is very democratic, in the sense that any good evidence or idea can be evaluated on its merits."
And morbius wrote:
"Uh, no, unless you think "evolutionist" is another term for "the ID people". He was complaining that the ToE doesn't take the Bible into account."
They are both quite mistaken. Here is the full context, at 1 hour 55 minutes, of that remark by Sisson:
"ID can be taught and should be taught as a logical inference on the agreed set of data that the other side brings forth. There is no Bible in their set of data. You dont need it.
"And if you are constructing the argument from entirely from the data that they acknowledge is appropriate for the discussion
of origins, then you ensure that the religious hypothesis... is not presented"
Randy · 4 November 2005
Randy · 4 November 2005
Oh yeah, and there was this Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel...
guthrie · 4 November 2005
Much as I do think the statement about priests was a little intemperate, I think that judging by the context, his point was that these priests have not made discoveries or done useful work based upon the Bible or any recieved religious truth. They may have been religiously inspired to examine the world, to understand God's handiwork better, but they didnt look inside the Bible to find out how different genes were passed on.
John · 5 November 2005
theonomo · 5 November 2005
The second quote, given by "another observer" is correct.
K.E. · 5 November 2005
another observer · 5 November 2005
John, can you say why you need this point about what Sisson said cleared up?
Tevildo · 5 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 5 November 2005
Arden Chatfield · 5 November 2005
evopeach · 7 November 2005
I have been reading, studying and listening to the evolutionist claims and agruments for three decades and have yet to hear a single, clearly stated and defensible definition of the genreal theory that meets the criteria of your own definition of science.
1) Experimentally demonstrable and repeatable by multiple scientists.
Note the general theory will include common decent, speciation, abiogenesis, first replicator from amino acids.
When these criteria are satisfied and the demonstration of these few basic necessities are satisfied and published in a few peer reviewd journals be sure to let me know.
Until then I will as always consider your position purely mythological and driven by deep philosophical committments to naturalism and the desire to keep the money flowing into your pockets.
Evopeach
Rilke's Granddaughter · 7 November 2005
Flint · 7 November 2005
Rilke's Granddaughter · 7 November 2005
Rilke's Granddaughter · 7 November 2005
Flint · 7 November 2005
RGD:
Depends on whether you consider mediocre to be superior or inferior to corrupt. We can have some reasonable hope that steps will be taken in only three years to correct some of the admittedly considerable damage that has been done. If Bush were a bad king, though, a little history shows this has long term problems - he would live only until someone a bit more vicious replaced him in a hostile takeover. And so on ad infinitum. And that same history shows that often enough GOOD kings are even more vulnerable, since they alienate the vested interests with the most influence (read: guns).
On the other hand, it's entirely possible (and has happened numerous times) that someone popular might also be capable and intelligent. That's part of being elected by the mediocre (that's us): we elect capable people by mistake because we ARE pretty dumb. And when we do, the capable people have much less need to watch their backs while scratching the backs of others.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 November 2005
Nobody cares what you think, Evopeach. (shrug)
morbius · 7 November 2005
morbius · 7 November 2005
Oops -- s/Schemmp/Schempp/g
another observer · 8 November 2005
k.e. · 8 November 2005
Sisson and all ID proponents regardless of which "side" of the they are on want the Bible in science classes pure and simple.
How hard is it understand that in this "game" you don't put fish in the Tour de France.
Salvador T. Cordova · 8 November 2005
morbius · 8 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
Hi Sal. Welcome back.
Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you. So I'll ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you show up here, until you either answer or run away. I want every lurker who comes in here to see that you are nothing but an evasive dishonest coward.
(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?
I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly
inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely
irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing----
the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one
that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under
oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is
NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely
completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead
wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your
scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology
does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.
Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide
answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the
current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used
in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.
Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able
to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did
the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the
Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can
we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective
criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by
pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think
is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).
If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we
perform, in principle, to answer these questions.
Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd
like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can
be falsified. What experimental results or observations would
conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.
Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does
not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I
want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there
are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is worng
so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want
a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care
why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and
how it explains data better than evolution does.
I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative
scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory"
determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or
thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory'
determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or
does it determine that they have not.
I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless of course you don't HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to.
(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, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?
I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?
Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" ... . . ?
(4) The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.
According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.
In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.
While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).
Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."
Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).
Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.
Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.
Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.
So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.
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? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.
Oh, and your latest round of blithering about "anti-God" and "anti-religion" prompts yet another question, Sal (whcih, of course, you also will not answer).
(5) Sal, you must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now
trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS
PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that
creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine,
then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So
you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID
is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are
UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public,
that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that
creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.
So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here
yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so
desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are
you really THAT stupid? Really and truly?
Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?
Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????
I really truly want to know.
k.e. · 8 November 2005
Sal
"the only man in the universe who makes more sense than The Hunting of the Snark"
When you have finished with Lenny's questions I would like to know if Dave Raup would approve of you doing the same for him that you did for Dembski ?
Do you know trafficking in delusion is a moral crime?
Finally a wise man once said:
A hundred hearings cannot surpass one seeing,
But after you see the teacher, that one glance cannot surpass a hundred hearings
Salvador T. Cordova · 8 November 2005
Rilke's Granddaughter · 8 November 2005
Lenny, you must remember that Sal is here to gratify his ego, and for no other reason. To expect anything from him other than grandstanding is like expecting cleanliness from a slug.
Rilke's Granddaughter · 8 November 2005
roger tang · 8 November 2005
It's true I don't answer your questions. So let me not answer your questions again to your dissatisfaction again. I invite you to repeat them each time I visit and post and thereby spam up PT beyond recognition. How does that sound?
Typical of someone who's unable to defend their position and knows it.
Anton Mates · 8 November 2005
jeffw · 8 November 2005
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ · 8 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
Oh, I know.
As I've noted before, my questions make their point whether Sal answers or not (although if he WERE to answer, it would just increase the fun and make my points even more obvious).
I don't need his cooperation. (shrug)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 November 2005
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ · 8 November 2005
Running away only shows his double bankruptcy: intellectual and theological.
This is now on record, for anyone to find. The more believers find it, and find out what they have been supporting, the more will turn away from the liars, from ID, and from fundamentalism.
Brian Spitzer · 10 November 2005
Sir_Toejam · 11 November 2005
k.e. · 11 November 2005
Lunch ?
I'll bet they fantasized about it being the last supper
what a bunch of pathetic loosers.
More like a meeting of the the Peoples Freedom for Industrial Deception Party. More comical than the meeting in the (Roman) Sewers in the "Life of Brian" did Dembski have a bad back?
Comical