Riding the Evolution-Design Roller Coaster

Posted 15 April 2006 by PvM

Seems ID activists do not shy away from inflation after all... In this case inflation of claims about a course taught by Allen MacNeill at Cornell.

The Cornell IDEA Club then posted a notice on their blog about the course, pointing out that it would be a seminar in which intelligent design theory would be discussed in the larger framework of its relationship to evolutionary theory. However (perhaps because of the source), this was immediately picked up by several websites supporting ID (most notably World Net Daily) and spun as "Cornell to Offer Course in Intelligent Design."

Link Of course our friends at Uncommon Descent decided to join the fray with Cordova's posting ID Course at Cornell. Seems ID is desperate for attention but why not spend all this effort and energy on making ID scientifically relevant? Or is that too hard? Let's read on: MacNeill sends a strong message to science supporters as well

Despite the fact that the topic is ostensibly the philosophy of science, the debate over the validity of ID versus evolutionary theory is fundamentally a scientific debate. If scientists refuse to debate the subject, we will leave the floor open for not-quite-science, pseudoscience, and (worst of all) anti-science to claim victory, and believe me that will be what the general public perceives the ID community has achieved.
— MacNeill

And while it is true that ID activists are quick to turn any mention, positive or negative, of Intelligent Design into PR, it is far more important to show how ID is scientifically vacuous. This means that scientists cannot and should not ignore the often overhyped claims of ID activists and should point out how ID has remained scientifically vacuous. Only by reducing ignorance can we best combat the philosophy of ID which is founded fundamentally in our ignorance of sciences.

221 Comments

a old maine yankee · 15 April 2006

David Brin wrote:

"IDers produce little or no evidence to support their own position. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts and by nearly a century and a half of rigorous review. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. Their target is the millions of American voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was."

I realize that confronting distortions, misrepresentations, and lies is necessary and even cathartic. I get a little worried, however, about those "millions of. . .voters" who see such confrontations as further proof of an atheistic science run amok. I guess we must keep plugging along each in our own small or large-scale way. But they're still searching for Noah's Ark for Darwin's sake!

I wonder if there might be additional strategies to share our view of life with those millions. Maybe it will take younger minds and bolder ideas.

Thanks for PT.

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

I would like to expand on the last comment by posting the entire paragraph in which it appeared:

In answer to some of my critics from evolutionary biology, therefore, I feel that it is very appropriate for this kind of discussion to take place in a science course, rather than just a history or philosophy of biology course. Students, including science majors, are far too often not given enough credit for their ability to both formulate and judge rational arguments in a free and open forum of ideas. Despite the fact that the topic is ostensibly the philosophy of science, the debate over the validity of ID versus evolutionary theory is fundamentally a scientific debate. If scientists refuse to debate the subject, we will leave the floor open for not-quite-science, pseudoscience, and (worst of all) anti-science to claim victory, and believe me that will be what the general public perceives the ID community has achieved.

Far too many scientists take the position that debates and public discussions of controversial topics (like evolution and ID) are outside the domain of what they feel is their responsibility (i.e. doing field and lab research). Admittedly, some scientists do a less than optimal job of defending their own disciplines when the do enter the fray, but I view this as an opportunity to learn as well as to teach. I have found that, by preparing to mount a comprehensive and forceful defense of my own position vis-a-vis science, I have come to a much better understanding, not only of my particular discipline, but also of the basic principles of scientific reasoning and logical argument. And if I may compliment my loyal adversaries in the Cornell IDEA Club, by presenting a forceful and well-thought-out explanation and defense of their position they have made it easier for me to see how and why we differ on these issues. Contrary to what some people on both sides of this debate have been asserting, Cornell students are not weak-kneed, muddle-headed sheep who blindly follow the dictates of either their teachers or some distant institute. As just one example, Hannah Maxson (the founder and president of the Cornell IDEA Club) is a junior triple major in chemistry, mathematics, and physics. If you know anything about the rigor of those majors at Cornell, you know that this is a person of impressive intellectual credentials. I may have started off on the wrong foot with the Club, but have come to realize that there are logical reasons for their positions, reasons that I don't necessarily agree with, but which do not reduce simply to ignorance nor religious fundamentalism. Indeed, if I may be so presumptuous as to characterize their disagreements with evolutionary biology, I believe they stem from what many philosophers of science (including Karl Popper) have pointed out as among the major differences between the physical and biological sciences. While it is true that some ID supporters exploit these differences for other ends, I believe that there are significant differences between the "historical sciences" (such as biology, geology, and cosmology) and the "ahistorical sciences" (such as chemistry, physics, and astrophysics). I have discussed some of these differences in my blog, at: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/incommensurate-worldviews.html Admittedly, some people on both sides of these issues have ulterior political and religious motives, but my experience with at least some of the members of the Cornell IDEA Club has taught me differently about them. I therefore look forward to a vigorous and productive debate, online and, if all goes well, in our courses here at Cornell.

harold · 15 April 2006

"Intelligent Design" is over, although it is critical to make sure that the stake is firmly driven through its heart.

It was always just a sleazy political movement with a deceptive name.

Hard core fanatic fundamentalists like Howard Ahmandson and others, whose views are shared by only a tiny fraction of Americans, wanted taxpayer-funded public schools to teach a simplistic, cultish "literal reading of Genesis" (which theologically contradicts the religions of most Americans) as "science". This was the original "creationism" movement. This fanatic madness was an egregious violation of American law, an affront to common decency, and a threat to the economy and national security of the United States, both of which depend heavily on science. Afghanistan under the Taliban is the only nation I can think of that ever adopted this type of educational standard. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia provide mainstream science education.

When creationism proper was angrily dismissed by every court, "intelligent design" was invented as a way to get money from fanatic, gullible, right wing fundamentalists with deep pockets. Its sole function was to invent slick arguments that would undermine, weaken, and distort science education and hint at creationism, while being nebulous enough to be "court proof". The name was chosen, cleverly, to trick people. Many people at first assume that it refers to an attitude like the one endorsed by the Vatican; acceptance of science but belief in a higher power who invests the universe with meaning. Once regular people are made aware of such gems as the claim that bacterial flagella could not have evolved, but were magically created, they tend to reject "intelligent design", to put it mildly.

A small subset of ID supporters are fanatic but wavering religious types who crave relief from the doubts that science provokes - for them. Most of its supporters, however, are actually disingenuous followers of right wing politics - they claim to support it because they think it's the "conservatively correct" thing to do; they really don't give a damn whether it makes sense or not. The overwhelming majority of ID supporters, as in probably over 95%, are right wing conservatives. (However, I hasten to add that many less misguided and more independent-thinking right wing conservatives support science and didain "ID"! It is not that all right wing conservatives support ID, but that virtually all ID supporters are right wing conservatives, which I emphasize.)

This is NOT intended as a generalized swipe at any particular political philosophy; this is not at all the venue for such. It is a statement of the facts.

As long as ID did not test itself in the courts - as the Discovery Institute clearly never intended it to - it was an excellent source of lucre. Gullible fundamentalists would support the DI, and massage their own egos by buying, and possibly reading, verbose books full of big words which purported to make intellectual "proof" of ID. Even figures as eccentric and non-telegenic as Behe and Dembski could rake in big incomes by prolifically cranking out such books and manning the lecture circuit. Many "loyal conservatives" would feel obliged to "support" ID.

However, the Thomas Moore Legal Center, an independent right wing lawsuit factory founded with Dominoes Pizza money, jumped the gun. Acting independently of the DI, they shopped "intelligent design" around to school boards, disingenuously minimizing the likely financial and social costs of an attempt to jam it into a public school curriculum. They probably hoped to land a board in a wealthy conservative suburb, but no such community was fool enough to bite. Eventually, in rural Dover PA, they found their unfortuate but willing guinea pigs.

As the resulting lawsuit progressed, ID supporters such as DaveScot gloated that Judge Jones, the presiding judge, was a Republican appointed by GWB, and would therefore decide in favor of ID, whatever the merits of the case (and once the case had been lost, other fundamentalists, for example Phyllis Schafly, railed against Judge Jones for not doing exactly that). The fact that a Bush-appointed Republican would preside may have been part of the rationale for using Dover.

However, in open court, the scientific and logical vacuity of ID, and the nefarious intentions of its supporters, quickly came to light. Judge Jones ruled strongly against the school board, and the residents of Dover ousted them from office (technically, they were ousted even before the ruling was officially known).

It is still important to highlight the failings of ID, first of all to make sure that it becomes universally regarded as fraudulent claptrap, and second of all, as an example of how not to do science, philosophy, or theology.

ts · 15 April 2006

Dr MacNiel

Could you post some of those ID models you refer to on your blog?

harold · 15 April 2006

Allan MacNeil -

Our comments seem to have gone up more or less simultaneously.

The sharply critical tone of mine was in no way intended to contrast with your own highly reasonable comment, which, in fact, I did not see until my own was already posted.

I stand by every word in my comment.

Obviously, some people who support ID have very impressive intellectual achievements, and obviously, students at Cornell are likely to fall into this category.

I wonder if it would ever be appropriate to ascertain the political affiliation of the students in IDEA. I'd bet a rather large sum that they would differ, in a statistically significant way, from those of the average Cornell student. And that I could predict how they would differ.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 15 April 2006

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology.

No science.

PREREQUISITES: None, although a knowledge of evolutionary theory and philosophy of biology would be helpful.

No scientific background required. Yes, it is an intelligent design course. Although a summer course I'm sure it will be well attended by idea club members that are around for the summer as well some locals. How many students from the Department Ecology and Evolutionary Biology find the course of interest is anybodies guess. Since the course is limited to 18 students it will be interesting to see who gets there first. I suspect the vast majority of students will be non science majors with no background in evolution. If the majority of students have no background in the sciences how do you demonstrate the scientific vacuity of ID?

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death.

I suspect the majority of ID students will want to discuss evidence supporting ID and not the listed topics. It will be interesting to see how the course evolves. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

jonboy · 15 April 2006

Dr MacNeill,
You seem to some what laud Hannah Maxson academic abilities,in a attempt to lend her position a semblance of credibility.Yet in examining her recent IDEA outburst against Hunter Rawlings,(President)one would have to question her misplaced logic.
I quote " Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the
universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result
of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. It follows the
principles of the scientific method, scorns the biases of either religion or naturalism, and
attempts to follow all the available evidence to a valid conclusion. ID is testable and
falsifiable, and so far its predictions have repeatedly been shown accurate.
I would like to see the empirical evidence for any of these assertion, could she post them ?

Stuart Weinstein · 15 April 2006

"While it is true that some ID supporters exploit these differences for other ends, I believe that there are
Its not that some supporters exploit "differences" for other ends; its that ID was started solely for the purpose of exploiting those other "ends"

You can't discuss ID and removed from its historical context. That only makes it looks like a scientific debate.

And while Cornell is impressive, being a triple major indicates you're intelligent, but not necessarily wise. This student would not be the first intelligent person suckered by the ID movement.

Tyrannosaurus · 15 April 2006

For a course of this type would it be of interest to present alternatives theories of evolution other than the one presented by Darwin and Wallace and how it came to be the later the one who prevailed. For example the instructor can use the ideas by Lamarck and how this was shown not valid. After all at first glance Lamarckism is very logical and potentially can be demonstrated through the scientific method but was wrong. With using "models" such as the one presented above the students will be more open to really analyze more pedestrian and puerile arguments such as ID.
Sorry, no spell check today!!!!

PvM · 15 April 2006

Welcome Allen,

Far too many scientists take the position that debates and public discussions of controversial topics (like evolution and ID) are outside the domain of what they feel is their responsibility (i.e. doing field and lab research). Admittedly, some scientists do a less than optimal job of defending their own disciplines when the do enter the fray, but I view this as an opportunity to learn as well as to teach.

I understand your position, I personally have contacted many scientists to help rebut issues related to their research, especially when it was abused by ID activists and found that many of them have bigger worries to deal with such as getting funding or doing research. And I appreciate their position that arguing with creationists may have limited effects. And I also disagree with them that the present form of creationism which presents itself as both compatible and at odds with Methological Naturalism needs to comments. Especially in the areas where ID activists make positive comments about the ability of evolutionary or more limited, Darwinian, mechanisms to explain the biological world, rebuttal of their position is essential. I have found the ID activists' arguments that neutrality and convergence are somehow better explained by Intelligent Design to be mostly vacuous. Not only do ID activists have a very limited understanding and appreciation of science in this area, they also rely strongly on old research (and quote mining). Thus it is essential that their claims are rebutted. Look for instance at the recent claims by Behe et al, moving the goal posts after science has once again rebutted irreducible complexity... The problem is that the ID activists often ignore the science and focus on propaganda and PR to further their goals. It's frustrating to me as a scientist that ID has such little to offer in the realm of science where it remains mostly scientifically vacuous. I also believe that by continuously exposing not only the poor foundation of their negative claims against evolution but also by pointing out the scientifically vacuity of ID that we can help people understand that ID is flawed. As a Christian, I also believe that from a religious perspective ID is theologically flawed and I encourage fellow Christians to explain why not only science and theology are not contradictory but also that ID is theologically risky.

passerby · 15 April 2006

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death.
— Bruce Thompson GQ

Cornell isn't good updating its website, and it looks as if you've got the description of last year's course, which focused on free will. This year's course information is posted here. An explanation here.

Registered User · 15 April 2006

Some allegedly "intelligent" chick at Cornell says

[Intelligent design] follows the principles of the scientific method, scorns the biases of either religion or naturalism, and attempts to follow all the available evidence to a valid conclusion. ID is testable and falsifiable, and so far its predictions have repeatedly been shown accurate.

Okay, so this poor little girl is either a willful liar or too stupid to understand that she's full of crap.

I wonder which it is?

Maybe she'd like to come here and explain herself.

Oh wait -- I forgot. Casey Luskin doesn't allow IDEA Club members to defend their scripts here.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 15 April 2006

Allen MacNeill notes: Hannah Maxson (the founder and president of the Cornell IDEA Club) is a junior triple major in chemistry, mathematics, and physics.

Then I look forward to Hannah's alternative to evolution to explain biological diversity. The force of logical arguments may be very persuasive but how will philosophical discussions about ID clarify the issues? Pim is correct, the core scientific issues need to be addressed. Evolution should be a required course not an elective (radical rant from the Darwinian pressure group delta pi gamma, now back to playing in the mud). Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum) As a side note, I can empathize with Cornell's ID Blog comment in recognition of the UD post concerning the upcoming Evolution/ID course "Uncommon Descent (well.....)" ----- To the Passerby SEMESTER: Cornell Six-Week Summer Session, 06/27/06 to 08/03/06 COURSE TITLE: Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Allen MacNeill, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present (see reading list, below) Yes, I shamelessly quote mined for my own diabolical purposes and I should be horse whipped with a stout horse.

PvM · 15 April 2006

Okay, so this poor little girl is either a willful liar or too stupid to understand that she's full of crap. I wonder which it is?

A bit more respect towards others would be far better than your response. What if people truly believe that ID has scientific potentials? They may be very wrong as both evidence and logic show but to call them either a liar or stupid is not going to impress anyone.

Arden Chatfield · 15 April 2006

A small subset of ID supporters are fanatic but wavering religious types who crave relief from the doubts that science provokes - for them. Most of its supporters, however, are actually disingenuous followers of right wing politics - they claim to support it because they think it's the "conservatively correct" thing to do; they really don't give a damn whether it makes sense or not.

Thank you for pointing this out so clearly. I've thought this for years, but it seems not to be articulated often, this fact of people supporting ID purely for political reasons. I think this is precisely where the legendary DaveScot is, which sometimes causes tensions with the nut fundy types who constitute most of the non-banned visitors at his blog.

Registered User · 15 April 2006

Allen MacNeill

Contrary to what some people on both sides of this debate have been asserting, Cornell students are not weak-kneed, muddle-headed sheep who blindly follow the dictates of either their teachers or some distant institute.

Some "distant institute"? Like the Discovery Institute? They publish their propaganda on the web, Allen. They aren't a "distant institute."

I don't know all the details about these "IDEA Clubs," how they are funded, and where they get their scripts. I do know that Hannah's garbage sound exactly like Casey Luskin's garbage. It's the same lies, Allen.

I'm curious: which of the scientific arguments in defense of "intelligent design" do you find "forceful" and "well thought out"? From where I'm standing, once you clear away the lies and semantic games from the ID script, your average high schooler can see that it's pure crap.

The only aspect of ID that is "well thought out" is the bait-n-switch manner in which ID is peddled to the rubes.

Here's a question for Hannah, Allen: does she know who the "designers" are? Assuming she does know (Michael Behe knows, after all, and he wrote Hannah's script), how does she know?

You see, with one question you will learn all you need to know about the "science" behind "ID theory."

Admittedly, some people on both sides of these issues have ulterior political and religious motives, but my experience with at least some of the members of the Cornell IDEA Club has taught me differently about them.

What experience was that, Allen? Either they are reciting the scripts because they are confused or they are reciting the scripts because they recognize that the scripts are tools for promoting their religion. So you're saying the IDEA Club students are confused?

They don't come across as confused exactly. They seem to me to be "on message."

Bottom line, Allen: don't be naive. Of course, it's entirely possible that you know what you are doing when you recite pleasing tales about the "well thought out" arguments that creationists have been peddling forever.

Registered User · 15 April 2006

What if people truly believe that ID has scientific potentials? They may be very wrong as both evidence and logic show but to call them either a liar or stupid is not going to impress anyone.

Huh? I'm not trying to impress anyone.

Someone who believes that "cynanide is a tasty treat for dogs" and tells others is either stupid or a liar. It doesn't matter how deeply held their belief is.

I'm not interested in playing games with ID promoters and pretending that their arguments are clever and challenging when they simply are not. If you want to do that, eat your heart out. I think it's a very bad idea.

Remember: "ID theory" is not about science. It's about politics and evangelizing.

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

Here is the full course description, available at http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-is-there-purpose.html

COURSE LISTING: BioEE 467/B&Soc 447/Hist 415/S&TS 447 Seminar in History of Biology

SEMESTER: Cornell Six-Week Summer Session, 06/27/06 to 08/03/06

COURSE TITLE: Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?

COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Allen MacNeill, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University

COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present (see reading list, below).

The current debate over "intelligent design theory" is only the latest phase in the perennial debate over the question of design in nature. Beginning with Aristotle's "final cause," this idea was the dominant explanation for biological adaptation in nature until the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. Darwin's work united the biological sciences with the other natural sciences by providing a non-teleological explanation for the origin of adaptation. However, Darwin's theory has been repeatedly challenged by theories invoking design in nature.

The latest challenge to the neo-darwinian theory of evolution has come from the "intelligent design movement," spearheaded by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. In this course, we will read extensively from authors on both sides of this debate, including Francisco Ayala, Michael Behe, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Ernst Mayr, and Michael Ruse. Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.

In addition to in-class discussions, course participants will have the opportunity to participate in online debates and discussions via the instructor's weblog. Students registered for the course will also have an opportunity to present their original research paper(s) to the class and to the general public via publication on the course weblog and via THE EVOLUTION LIST.

INTENDED AUDIENCE: This course is intended primarily for students in biology, history, philosophy, and science & technology studies. The approach will be interdisciplinary, and the format will consist of in-depth readings across the disciplines and discussion of the issues raised by such readings.

PREREQUISITES: None, although a knowledge of evolutionary theory and philosophy of biology would be helpful.

DAYS, TIMES, & PLACES: The course will meet on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:00 to 9:00 PM in Mudd Hall Room 409 (The Whittaker Seminar Room), beginning on Tuesday 27 June 2006 and ending on Thursday 3 August 2006. We will also have an end-of-course picnic at a location TBA.

CREDIT & GRADES: The course will be offered for 4 hours of credit, regardless of which course listing students choose to register for. Unless otherwise noted, course credit in BioEE 467/B&Soc 447 can be used to fulfill biology/science distribution requirements and Hist 415/S&TS 447 can be used to fulfill humanities distribution requirements (check with your college registrar's office for more information). Letter grades for this course will be based on the quality of written work on original research papers written by students, plus participation in class discussion.

COURSE ENROLLMENT & REGISTRATION: All participants must be registered in the Cornell Six-Week Summer Session to attend class meetings and receive credit for the course (click here for for more information and to enroll for this course). Registration will be limited to the first 18 students who enroll for credit. Auditors may also be allowed, space permitting (please contact the Summer Session office for permission to audit this course).

REQUIRED TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):

Behe, Michael (2006) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: Free Press
ISBN: 0743290313

Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
Paperback: 400 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton (reissue edition)
ISBN: 0393315703

Dembski, William (2006) The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 0521678676

Johnson, Phillip E. (2002) The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
Paperback: 192 pages
Publisher: InterVarsity Press
ISBN: 0830823956

Ruse, Michael (2006) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press
ISBN: 0674016319

OPTIONAL TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):

Darwin, Charles (E. O. Wilson, ed.) (2006) From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books
Hardcover: 1,706 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton
ISBN: 0393061345

Dembski, William & Ruse, Michael (2004) Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
Hardcover: 422 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12,
ISBN: 0521829496

Forrest, Barbara & Gross, Paul R. (2004) Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
Hardcover: 416 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
ISBN: 0195157427

Graffin, Gregory W. (2004) Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View
Paperback: 252 pages
Publisher: Polypterus Press (P.O. Box 4416, Ithaca, NY, 14852; can be purchased online at:
http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/obtain.html)
ISBN: 0830823956

Perakh, Mark (2003) Unintelligent Design
Hardcover: 459 pages
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591020840

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

For the record, I also teach evolution for non-majors (BioEE 207) in the summer session and (with Will Provine) during the regular fall semester at Cornell. We require students in that course to read the first edition of the Origin of Species (cover to cover), along with several other full length books (this summer I'm using Sean Carroll's new book on evo-devo, Endless Forms Most Beautiful). I have toyed with the idea of requiring that students have taken this course before they take the seminar course (either that or evolution for majors, BioEE 278, which is required of all biology majors at Cornell), but have not made it a prerequisite since about half of the course is history, philosophy, or science and technology studies majors.

As to the question of what I'm planning for the seminar course this summer, you can find a more detailed description here:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-what-will-course.html

And as to my attitude toward my adversaries, I adhere to Kurt Vonnegut's dictum:
"After all else is gone, what remains is courtesy."

harold · 15 April 2006

Arden Chatfield -

Thank you. Lenny Flank has also made this point numerous times.

My summary of the history of ID (highly relevant in this thread) is, I admit, full of words like "disingenuously", "cleverly", "sleazy", "gullible", "fanatic", etc. It is openly critical; I made no attempt at diplomacy, for better or for worse. I stand by it, however.

All -

I have never met Hannah Maxson, but here's my guess about her.

No doubt we all remember that one of the old-time creationists, being a firm believer in the literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark story a priori, literally forced himself, long after his beliefs were thoroughly petrified, through a degree in Hydrological Engineering! His goal was not to explore ideas, but to be able to say "I believe that the Noah story is meant to be interpreted in a rigid, literal way (presumably in the King James translation), and I am a hydrological engineer!.

But this is dishonest. It implies that the degree taught him something that made him believe in the story, when in fact, he would have and did rigidly stick to his fanatic belief no matter what his studies said on the matter. He took the degree, after the fact, to give a false impression that his belief was based on scientific scholarship. It's also an especially egregious version of argument from authority - "argument from auto-authority", with himself as the authority. I'm sure the man was highly intelligent, but that's irrelevant.

I apologise in advance for the seemingly critical tone here, but...

My money says Hannah Maxson is a young woman with a political bone to pick, probably disguised as a religious bone, probably a bone of a right wing and authoritarian nature. She has identified support for ID as something that fits with her particular ideology. She has already made up her mind, and she doesn't give a rat's patootey what she learns in any science class. She may also perceive that articulate people with science degrees who claim to support ID can pull in mucho dinero, as a secondary motivation.

But she's decided to slog through a triple major, not so much to learn anything, at least not about the merits of evolutionary biology, but to be able to say "I have a triple-barrel science degree from a fancy-schmancy Ivy League university, and I believe in ID, so therefor ID must be correct".

Of course, I'm just guessing. Or rather, I'm expressing a hypothesis, which can to a large degree be verified or falsified by observation.

Again, I don't mean to be excessively critical of a young person I have never known, and who may, in fact, learn the error of her ID ways. But today, I feel the need to call 'em as I see 'em.

harold · 15 April 2006

Dr MacNeil -

I applaud your efforts, and despite my relatively strong language today, I am a big believer in treating others with courtesy and respect. As a relative veteran of the pro-science side (amateur but involved), I have learned a few things about ID which, when expressed plainly, may seem, to the uninitiated, to be excessively critical. No denigration of any individual is intended.

Both of your courses look extremely challenging.

There seems to be a fair amount of ID reading required, as well as Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker. As much as I admire Dawkins intellect, scientific work, writing style, and tirelessness, I've always found that he distracts readers by indulging in a "science versus religion" false dichotomy, and tends to oversimplify a bit too much even for a lay audience*. However, it would probably be outrageous to have a course on ID without including these materials, and presumably classroom discussion will illuminate their many shortcomings.

*I realize that many posters here are members of Dawkins' large fan base.

Mike Z · 15 April 2006

This course at Cornell is raising such a fuss, I am led to wonder:

Does anyone here know of any other university-level courses at other schools that actually present the whole set of intelligent design arguments? I suppose there are some strictly religious institutions that do so, but how about secular schools?

I teach a philosophy of science course at CU Boulder in which we go through the ID arguments as framed in Ken Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God." As most people here may know, Miller is a very competent and eloquent defender of mainstream science.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 15 April 2006

To site administration of PT and Allen MacNeill:

RE: Course description BioEE 467. Students registered for the course will also have an opportunity to present their original research paper(s) to the class and to the general public via publication on the course weblog and via THE EVOLUTION LIST.

Would it be possible to have a formal discussion of individual papers presented in BioEE 467 here at PT? Is it appropriate? I don't know how Dr. MacNeill plans on handling comments at his site, but student papers will probably bring up interesting topics worthy of discussion.

Dr. MacNeill may we inundate your site with comments? Can we have raging arguments at your place, or would they be better held in virtual pub of the University of Ediacara?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

David B. Benson · 15 April 2006

Well, I want to organize a Cornell summer school 'class' to teach the controversy regarding the shape of the earth. The students will read books on each of the following, write research papers, and public ally defend their results.

(1) Flat earth;

(2) Orange-shaped earth, including the great depression in the north;

(3) Apple-shaped earth, included the lobes;

(4) Pear-shaped earth.

No bananas or kiwi fruit will be allowed unless by special permission. In no circumstances will rotten tomatoes be allowed during lectures.

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

Very cute. Have you read the course description, the reading list, and the explanation of why I'm teaching it, or is reading not one of your skills? Here, let me help (from http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-what-will-course.html ):

"Let me assure my faithful readers that I am not "teaching intelligent design" at Cornell Univesity this summer. Rather, I am offering a seminar course in which the participants (including me) will attempt to come to some understanding vis-a-vis the following:

As Ernst Mayr pointed out in his 1974 paper ("Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis." In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117), it may be legitimate for evolutionary biologists to refer to adaptations as teleological. However, such adaptations have evolved by natural selection, which itself is NOT a purposeful process. Therefore, we have a fascinating paradox: purposefulness can evolve (as an emergent property) from non-purposeful matter (and energy, of course) via a process that is itself purposeless (as far as we can tell). This immediately suggests the following questions:

* Is there design or purpose anywhere in nature?
* If so, are there objective empirical means by which it can be detected and its existence explained?
* Can the foregoing questions be answered using methodological naturalism as an a priori assumption?
* What implications do the answers to these questions have for science in general and evolutionary biology in particular?

To answer these questions, we will read several books and a selection of articles on the subject of design and purpose in nature (the course description is available here). As you can see from the reading list, we will be looking at all sides of this very challenging issue. My own position is very strongly on the side of evolutionary biology (i.e. in the tradition of "methodological naturalism"). Consequently, I disagree very strongly with the positions of Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, and other representatives of the Discovery Institute. I will therefore be attacking both their positions and the metaphysical assumptions upon which they are based with as much logic and vigor as I can muster. At the same time, I have invited members of the Cornell IDEA Club to participate in the course and to explain and defend their beliefs and positions. From my previous interactions with them, I expect that they will make an equally forceful and well-argued case for their position. The students taking the course will be expected to follow the arguments, participate in them, and come to their own conclusions, which they will then be required to defend to the rest of us. Regardless of whether they agree with me or with my opponents, their work will be judged on the basis of logical coherence and marshalling of references in support of their arguments.

As to the question of whether "intelligent design theory" is worthy of study (and is especially appropriate for a science-oriented seminar course), I have several reasons to believe that it is:

First, by clearly drawing a distinction between the traditional scientific approach (i.e. "methodological naturalism") and the "supernaturalist" approach, we can clarify just what science is capable of (and what it isn't). Like Ernst Mayr, I believe that the question of the existence of design or purpose in nature can ultimately be answered without resort to supernatural explanations. Indeed, as an evolutionary psychologist, I believe that we do have the ability to recognize design and purpose in nature (and to act purposefully ourselves), and that this ability is the result of natural selection. That is, both of these abilities have adaptive value in a world in which some phenomena are not designed and/or purposeful and others are (the latter having potentially fatal consequences if unrecognized).

Secondly, by studying what I believe to be a flawed attempt at identifying and quantifying design or purpose in nature, we may be able to do a better job of it. Clearly, there are purposeful entities capable of "intelligent design" in the universe: I am one and I infer that you are another. There are also objects and processes that clearly are not: the air we are both currently breathing clearly fall into this class. As a scientist committed to naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, it is clear to me that there must be some way of discerning between these two classes of objects and processes, as both of them are clearly "natural." Therefore, we will use several approaches to the identification and explanation of design and purpose to do so.

Thirdly, the recent resurrection of "intelligent design theory" has historical and political, as well as scientific roots. By studying these, we can learn better how science proceeds, how scientific hypotheses are tested, and how scientific theories are validated (and invalidated). In my opinion, "intelligent design theory" as it is currently promulgated falls far short of the criteria for natural science, but is very useful at demonstrating how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

Finally, the question of design and purpose in nature is one that goes back to the foundation of western philosophy. The Ionian philosophers - Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, Epicurus, and their Roman descendant Lucretius - were the first people in recorded history to assert that nature can be explained without reference to supernatural causes. Their ideas were overshadowed by the academy of Plato and his student, Aristotle, who proposed that supernatural and teleological causes were primary. Darwin revolutionized western science because he completed the subversion of the Platonic/Aristotelian world view, replacing it with a naturalistic one much more like that of the Ionians. It is this tradition we will investigate, and which I hope we can in some way emulate this summer."

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

Unfortunately, it seems that demagoguery is not the exclusive purview of the ID side.

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

Bruce Thompson asked:

Would it be possible to have a formal discussion of individual papers presented in BioEE 467 here at PT? Is it appropriate? I don't know how Dr. MacNeill plans on handling comments at his site, but student papers will probably bring up interesting topics worthy of discussion.

As I have noted elsewhere, I am investigating the possibility of podcasting some of the discussions we will be having this summer on my blog. In addition, I will also be posting summaries of the arguments on my blog at http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/ . In the past, the course has focussed on such topics as the implications of evolutionary theory for human free will, ethics, and the concept of purpose (a la Ernst Mayr and Colin Pittendrigh's "teleonomy.") Some of the research papers the students have written have been quite extraordinary, and if this summer's crop of papers includes a paper or two of such calibre, I will try to post them at my blog (with the student's permission, of course). That is, assuming anybody signs up for the course ;-) P.S. I think of my blog as more like a seminar course in which I get to do most of the talking. Therefore, I would prefer that any "rowdy" discussions take place here. Just give me a corner stool at the bar (and I like my ale nut-brown and cellar cool, please...)

AR · 15 April 2006

PvM (whom I hold in a high esteem) wrote (comment 96686) about ID supporters:

They may be very wrong as both evidence and logic show but to call them either a liar or stupid is not going to impress anyone.

I wonder, if they are "very wrong," denying both evidence and logic, what is the third option besides being either stupid or liars? The quotation from the "triple major" at Cornell seems to strongly imply that she belongs in the first category, however impolite such a statement sounds. Should we disregard facts for the sake of making an impression?

ag · 15 April 2006

While Allen MacNeill seems to be a good guy, I am afraid he did not think through all the consequences of his endeavor - the planned course which would give equal time to science and pseudo-science.

PvM · 15 April 2006

They may be very wrong as both evidence and logic show but to call them either a liar or stupid is not going to impress anyone.

I wonder, if they are "very wrong," denying both evidence and logic, what is the third option besides being either stupid or liars? This presumes that all ID activists are aware of the major arguments against ID or even the evidence in support of Darwinian theory or evolutionary theory. Furthermore, by calling someone a liar, hope of any discussion will be quickly dissipate. I agree that some ID activists could be argued to have built up a good enough track record to allow one to come to specific conclusions. Even in those cases, rather than call them upon it, the best response is either to ignore them or to continue to show how their ideas are wrong.

Salvador T. Cordova · 15 April 2006

Unregistered PandasThumbite wrote: Okay, so this poor little girl is either a willful liar or too stupid to understand that she's full of crap.

You might be interested to know there are pro-ID faculty members at Cornell including Mark Psiaki and biologist John Sanford. ID at Cornell, John Sanford and Allen MacNeill Regarding the advance of ID into IVY league schools such as Cornell, Red State Rabble had this to say: IDEA Clubs

That is why, although the number of activists may still be quite small, it is time to act. .... Perhaps more important than just calling attention to the problem, Rawlings committed the resources of the university to combating the problem. ... We need to consciously enlist students in this battle as well.

Since when is using university resources to program students' minds appropriate? Or treating these students like they are a problem that need to be eradicated. This is wrong. I'd like to commend Dr. MacNeill for setting an example of how university discourse should be conducted.

Arden Chatfield · 15 April 2006

Allen MacNeill on April 15, 2006 06:42 PM (e) Unfortunately, it seems that demagoguery is not the exclusive purview of the ID side.

Oh dear, this quote tells us a lot, I fear...

PvM · 15 April 2006

While Allen MacNeill seems to be a good guy, I am afraid he did not think through all the consequences of his endeavor - the planned course which would give equal time to science and pseudo-science.

Perhaps unavoidable. Now let's imagine the following scenarios 1. Class focused mostly on debunking ID ID activists would be quick to reject the class and its arguments due to the biased nature of the class. Hannah's response already suggests that ID may not receive a fair hearing.

Thank you for the backstory, Allen! You know I disagree on where the empirical approach leads, as well as the probable result of a full and fair examination, but the important thing is to have that sort of inquiry in the first place.

On the other hand, on UD, our friend Sal is already spinning Allen's class and statements... What else is there to do when ID fails to have scientific relevance? 2. Class focused 'equal time' ID activists now face the much tougher situation as to how to deal with the information which shows how ID fails to be scientifically relevant. By listening to the arguments, one can ensure that the students' objections and arguments are fully addressed and discussed. ID has many aspects and a class which focuses on showing the religious foundations of ID may fail to get the message across to those who believe that ID has scientific relevance.

David B. Benson · 15 April 2006

Dear Allen MacNeill,

It's known as satire, not demagoguery.

I had read your course description and book list. But your post #96702 was much more helpful in understanding your most ambitious goals. Indeed, Cornell students must be extraordinarily quick and studious to follow all of that! (Not satire, I hasten to add).

Here are some other aspects, in no particular order, that might also be considered. AFAIK, teleology, in its usual modern form was championed by Henri Bergson. Maybe something by him ought to be on the book list. Perhaps one of the many fine "Readings in Philosophy" textbooks ought to be there?

I am sure that we agree regarding the tendency of humans to find purpose where there is none. One approach to considering this matter begins with R. Dawkins introducing the notion of 'meme' in "The Selfish Gene". (I didn't notice this fine book on your reading list.) This notion of 'meme' and the co-evolution of meme and gene was pushed to the utmost in S. Blackmore's "The Meme Machine". Imho it is unfortunate that the human sciences, including psychology, have not pursued this notion of co-evolution further. (Maybe some have and I just do not know the literature.) Nonetheless, if you wish to treat a human tendency to teleology I encourage you to add some readings on memes and memeplexs.

Finally, since I don't seem to be having much luck convincing biologists to consider the implications for teleology and other concerns in "Into the Cool", perhaps this might be on your supplemental list as well?

Good luck, David

Salvador T. Cordova · 15 April 2006

AR asked: I wonder...what is the third option besides being either stupid or liars?

That she could be right. :-)

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

I was tempted to put The Selfish Gene on the reading list, but felt that The Blind Watchmaker was a better choice. As to why the particular texts were chosen, I also felt some compulsion to choose paperbacks, as hardcovers are brutally expensive. This, of course, relegated some of the more recent books (like Barbara Forrest's and Mark Perakh's) to the "Optional" reading list.

The odd thing about all of the comments I have read so far is that no one has commented on my observation (in the course description) that Francisco Ayala, Colin Pittendrigh, Ernst Mayr, and William Wimsat (among others) have all argued for the legitimacy of teleological language when talking about adaptations (but not, of course, for the process that produces them). This was, for me, perhaps the most interesting topic that we will be exploring in the seminar course this summer: how can a non-teleological process (i.e. natural selection, plus drift, etc.) produce adaptations that appear to be teleological? This is a question wit relevence for cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence computing, not to mention philosophy. I hope this question will not be overshadowed by the discussion of ID. I will do my best to make sure it is not, but seminars sometimes have a way of setting their own agendas. We shall see...

PvM · 15 April 2006

You might be interested to know there are pro-ID faculty members at Cornell including Mark Psiaki and biologist John Sanford. ID at Cornell, John Sanford and Allen MacNeill
— Sal

More on Sanford

Any reasons why ID should be proud of Sanford? Any ID relevant research (if that even exists?)

Gerard Harbison · 15 April 2006

Sal has claimed both here and on Uncommon Dissent that Sanford is a biologist at Cornell. That doesn't in fact seem to be true. Sanford seems to have once been on the horticultural faculty at the ag. college, but retired at the Associate Professor stage, and now merely has a courtesy appointment (which I suspect means an email address and access to the library). He was a biotechnologist of some considerable achievement, but looks like he's a quintessential example of Salem's Law -- a technologist who gravitates toward the idea of design, rather than a scientist.

PvM · 15 April 2006

The odd thing about all of the comments I have read so far is that no one has commented on my observation (in the course description) that Francisco Ayala, Colin Pittendrigh, Ernst Mayr, and William Wimsat (among others) have all argued for the legitimacy of teleological language when talking about adaptations (but not, of course, for the process that produces them).
— Allen

Personally I have argued similarly on PT in various postings. Yes, I am most familiar withg Ayala and Ruse's positions on these topics. Teleology in evolution seems all but inevitable.

This was, for me, perhaps the most interesting topic that we will be exploring in the seminar course this summer: how can a non-teleological process (i.e. natural selection, plus drift, etc.) produce adaptations that appear to be teleological? This is a question wit relevence for cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence computing, not to mention philosophy. I hope this question will not be overshadowed by the discussion of ID.

Addressing the apparant versus actual teleology in nature is indeed a powerful way to address ID's 'claims'.

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

Kitzmiller vs Dover is already one of the papers on the required reading list. So is Mayr (1974) "Teleology and Teleonomic: A New Analysis."

And many thanks to Nick Matzke for your brief but useful discussion of disanalogies between adaptation and teleology. Is there a reference on this (besides Dawkins, who is already on my reading list)?

Allen MacNeill · 15 April 2006

PvM wrote:

Addressing the apparant versus actual teleology in nature is indeed a powerful way to address ID's 'claims'.

At last! Someone sees the point I saw when Will Provine and I made up this version of our summer course. Thank you!

burredbrain · 15 April 2006

To Registered User:
As an alternative to stupid and liar, there is willful ignorance, as in none so blind as he who will not see. Fortunately, ignorance is curable, but willfulness, perhaps not. I think many ID supporters fall into this third category because the alternative is to become knowledgeable, which involves time and brain power.

To Allen MacNeill:
The idea of having the student present and represent a book opposite to the student's stated position and to be the subject matter expert for that book has some merit. To do so will require the willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the student; can the students do that? Defending the opposite of one's beliefs can clarify the mind wonderfully. In any event, I look forward to hearing about the seminar and related postings. Good luck with it.

Richiyaado · 15 April 2006

Allen MacNeill writes:

"Far too many scientists take the position that debates and public discussions of controversial topics (like evolution and ID) are outside the domain of what they feel is their responsibility (i.e. doing field and lab research). Admittedly, some scientists do a less than optimal job of defending their own disciplines when the do enter the fray, but I view this as an opportunity to learn as well as to teach."

Commendable, but perhaps a little naive. For the forces of classic "wedge" ID, it will simply play into their hands. For them, there is only PR, and it's all good. There will be no end of using this as another example of how ID has/is gaining respect academically... look for this to be parroted endlessly on the DI site, at ARN, on ID blogs, by ID-friendly politicians and advocates at school board hearings, et al.

PvM · 15 April 2006

Teleological notions in Biology

frank schmidt · 15 April 2006

Allen,
Your course is a brave attempt. But I fear there are some serious hazards ahead. The major one has to do with the inability of evidence to change a mindset based on a more primitive need. Creationists have a deep need for there to be purpose and a caring divine origin for the Universe, and no amount of scientific evidence will change this. Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God has a particularly instructive example: he demolished a creationist's arguments in debate one night. On joining him for breakfast the next day, Ken was astounded to find that his position had changed not a whit. I fear a similar fate awaits your class: IDC-ers will read attentively, learn the material, participate in the discussions, and then go on believing the same stuff they came in with.

Craig Nelson at Indiana has experience with this problem, and uses some cognitive dissonance techniques to teach the nature of science before starting in on the meat of the discussion. I suggest you chat with him about his experiences and the methods for encouraging students to critically evaluate their prejudices.

Secondly, I think you misunderestimate (to borrow a word attributed to a certain Texas creationist) the dishonesty of the creationists. They simply do not accept evidence, even though they say they do. They will deny the obvious, invent objections and say black is white, simply to advance their cause. It all makes for an unpleasant and educationally unrewarding experience unless you are forewarned and prepared.

Steve Reuland · 16 April 2006

I wonder, if they are "very wrong," denying both evidence and logic, what is the third option besides being either stupid or liars?
— AR

That they are strongly devoted to a preexisting point of view that is based on neither evidence nor logic, but holds a lot of meaning for them personally. You won't find a pseudoscience (or whatever you wish to call it) that isn't "very wrong" yet for some reason still has intelligent, highly educated people who are strong proponents of it. Even things like geocentrism, which takes us back to pre-Coppernican days, has PhDs who support it. Not many of course, but that they exist at all is pretty amazing. Why this is, I don't know, but Michael Shermer has given what I think is the best explanation: Smart people belive weird things because they're very good at rationalizing positions that they arrived at for non-smart reasons. It may not be a flattering psychological view, but it has nothing to do with them being stupid or liars.

Anton Mates · 16 April 2006

This course at Cornell is raising such a fuss, I am led to wonder: Does anyone here know of any other university-level courses at other schools that actually present the whole set of intelligent design arguments? I suppose there are some strictly religious institutions that do so, but how about secular schools?
— Mike Z

The course I took this last quarter at Ohio State was "Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology 710: Creation and Evolution: Differing World Views." Class notes are here. It's taught by Dr. Andrea Wolfe; I'm sure she'd be happy to discuss it with you if you contacted her, Allen. Probably the majority of students were bio majors; most of the rest (AFAIK) were in science education. A few units of biology were a prerequisite. I know there were both YECs and IDers in the class I took. It didn't focus purely on ID, but also covered YEC and the "soul as God's gift" brand of theistic evolution. A few things I particularly liked about it, that touch on Allen's comments and questions: *There was a reasonable amount of material on evolution (an outline of the history of life on Earth, an intro to human evolution) as well as on Darwin's life and work. The Origin was required reading. Of course it was made clear that modern evolutionary theory doesn't depend on Darwin, but I think it was very useful to show just how badly many evolution opponents smear and distort him. *Enough time was spent on YEC to show how much ID owes to it. *Students were expected, as you suggested, to write on various social and biological issues from multiple perspectives; YEC one time, mainstream evolution supporter another, and so forth. It seemed to me this was quite valuable in making the student get to grips with each position's arguments. For instance, I noticed that most students seemed to have no problem writing as a YEC--just quote the Bible as fact and call scientists liars! But they had difficulty writing as an ID advocate, because no one could work out exactly what ID advocates were advocating and how you'd go about figuring out if a fact supported it or not. Which of course is precisely the problem with ID. Also, guest speakers were a good thing; the class seemed to get quite a bit more critical of YEC and ID once they actually heard someone try to defend them. :) This may be partly because Dr. Wolfe's done a fair bit of debating and is skilled at asking embarrassing questions. Did it change any minds? I think so. I didn't talk to any of the outright creationists in the class, so I can't speak for them, but I know that some of the students who started with a "let's be open-minded and teach the controversy" attitude walked away basically saying "Wow, I guess there wasn't a controversy to teach."

k.e. · 16 April 2006

Allen MacNeill
I can't believe you are using Demski's book as a text book, his total misuse of the English language is almost criminal.

As a text book example of pure solipsistic tautology and Sesquipedalian Obscurantism
it deserves a course of its own, in how not to write period.

Are you going to point out some of the hallmarks of pseudoscience and reference Alan Sokals "Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?" (right click and download)

I admire your bravery choosing "Addressing the apparent versus actual teleology in nature is indeed a powerful way to address ID's 'claims'" as a "silver bullet" but maybe you should rescan the the Hydra myth.
Hercules had to cut down an entire forest to cauterize the monster's necks each time he cut off a (talking)head, before the village(world) was safe from the preachings (bad breath) of the Hydra (mans subconscious fears and pride). The creature never died, it only retreated to the swamp (mans collective unconscious). Not enough room in your course for Fraud's or Jung's 'dangerous ideas' I suppose.

Darwin may have reunited ancient Greek philosophy (common sense) with modern science but that was only the start, with Freud and Jung a rationalization of mythology (all religions are based on mythologies) with modern psychology and the history of ideas, furthered the enlightenment, which some people today consider to be a historical anomaly.

Where we are today with neuroscience and its pioneering research is where Darwin was 150 years ago and is much more relevant than tired old Paleyist religious obscurantism ( a whole subset reactionary political movements around the world in themselves) and pious apologetics married to right wing identity politics.

Don't be surprised if you run out of trees before all the heads have been cut off.

I'm glad you have included the Dover transcript as course material.... here's a hint the red neck's will bang on about the unfairness of the Judge's "activism" and boo hoo hoo all the way home. The believers reading Behe's testimony will not change their minds and think he acquitted himself admirably. I don't know what you think of his utter and complete debacle but the whole course could be structured around his dissembling and the class depending which side they took would reveal their positions immediately.

If you are going to concentrate on "teleology" then looking into the entrails I see endless word games leading nowhere conclusive.

If you do want to move the debate forward by say...... oh 150 years why not throw in an even more "dangerous idea... Mirror Neurons and denial" (look them up).

k.e. · 16 April 2006

Bah
Sesquipedalian Obscurantism = http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A640207

Jay Ray · 16 April 2006

Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.
— From the course description

A grandiose intent, indeed, especially for a single term course. I admit that this intent puzzles me. My reading of the whole IDC/evolution package is that they are entirely dichotomous arguments. A line has been drawn in the sand which is incapable of being straddled. Everyone I have ever met falls in one of two camps. A) that some external concious entity is in some way intentionally responsible for life on earth, or b) that natural processes can do it without any help by [insert your favorite designer here.] Is integration even possible? What important particulars, aside from the fact that "we are here", can these two camps ever agree upon?

Wesley R. Elsberry · 16 April 2006

Calling it an urgent matter "of great significance to Cornell and to the country as a whole," Hunter Rawlings said, "The issue in question is the challenge to science posed by religiously based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as intelligent design." He said bluntly, "ID is a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea." Shocked by Rawlings' speech, Maxson shot back with a news release posted on the IDEA Club's Web site. She criticized Rawlings for his "blatant disregard for the facts concerning intelligent design" and for "blasting the emerging intelligent design theory as unscientific and religious in an unscrupulous, unknowledgeable manner." (Source)

Despite Maxson's three majors, she managed to get a simple historical fact completely wrong, and then had the gall to accuse someone else of being unscrupulous and unknowledgeable for getting it right. Count me unimpressed.

k.e. · 16 April 2006

Hmmmmmmmm maybe Maxson should take up ~~law~~ Public Relations.

B. Spitzer · 16 April 2006

While Allen MacNeill seems to be a good guy, I am afraid he did not think through all the consequences of his endeavor - the planned course which would give equal time to science and pseudo-science.

I'm somewhat dismayed by the responses here on PT to Dr. MacNeill's course. Of course the DI is going to pick this up and try to run with it ("a class on ID at a prestigious institution-- we're a growing, revolutionary movement!"), but that's exactly what they'd do if the course weren't offered ("the Darwinian orthodoxy refuses to let students hear about our growing, revolutionary movement!"). I fear that, after spending such a long time trying to root out the Movement Formerly Known as Creationism, some folks here are seeing this as a one-dimensonal question: either this class is for ID, or it isn't. But the issues involved run pretty deep. There are fascinating threads of philosophy, history, psychology, science, and religion which are woven into the debate over ID. There are many, many perspectives from which creationism can be examined and discussed, and I get the sense that Dr. MacNeill's course could be a very rich one, where students can investigate many angles. The fact that ID is under discussion in this class does not mean that it is being championed, or that this will generate positive publicity for ID. After all, what happened the last time that ID got to speak its piece as clearly and loudly as possible? That's right-- Dover. [/channeling Lenny Flank] Dr. MacNeill: I taught a one-month course on Evolution and Creationism back in January. Our reading lists look remarkably similar, but I included a lot of shorter articles, rather than using entire books as sources. It looks as though you're taking your course in a more philosophical direction, and that's not my strong suit. However, I'd be happy to send you some sources that I found especially useful, if that would be useful for you. I'd be very interested in hearing what worked and didn't work for you as your class develops, since I'm planning on teaching the same course again in this coming January.

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2006

I think some people here should calm down a bit. Teaching about Evolution, Creationism and ID at the college level is not only entirely acceptable, but it is very much opportune, and probably necessary at this point. And if someone has to do it, who better than a person who knows evolutionary biology and is committed to science, as opposed to some creationist engineer, or chemist, or philosopher? Look at the alternative. So, from that point of view, kudos and good luck, Dr. McNeil (in fact, since Rochester is not that far from Cornell, and at some point we may want to do something similar at the U of R, I would love to drop by one of your classes, with your permission - I might get in touch).

Regardless of the psychology of the evolution deniers, this is something that will expose them, in some cases for the first time, to some critical thinking about the issue, and it's definitely worth a try. The trick of course is to be uncompromising as far as evidence and logic go, while being respectful of people. I am not as optimistic as you are about the attributes of some of these students: they may indeed be objectively smart and articulate, but I have seen what some Creationists are capable of when their deeply held beliefs are challenged. We'll see.

One thing that cannot be overemphasized however is to be very aware of the code words and sham arguments that make up the Creationist lore, and try not to fall into the trap of inadvertently reinforcing them.

For instance, it is true, as you say, that there are differences "between the "historical sciences" (such as biology "[I think you mean here "evolutionary biology" - most biology is actually experimental], geology, and cosmology) and the "ahistorical sciences" (such as chemistry, physics, and astrophysics)", but please remember that misrepresenting such differences to cast wholesale doubt about the conclusions of historical sciences as inherently unreliable is a major strategy of ID/Creationists. In Kansas, it is one of the major points of emphasis in the science standards revisions by the Creationist BoE, for instance. There is some good lit on the topic (Carol Cleland wrote a good paper a couple years ago - I can find the ref if you'd like me to).

I personally think it is more important to emphasize that there is a continuum between disciplines that study phenomena on a temporal/physical scale that is far from our own (evolutionary biology, astronomy, nuclear physics) all the way to those that deal with stuff we can actually see and touch (ecology, anatomy, mechanics). For the former, there has to be a denser layer of theoretical modeling required to interpret empirical results (experimental or observational), but ultimately I see little difference in the intrinsic heuristic value of the various kinds of theories and methods. Accurately predicting the physical features of a new radioisotope is no larger feat, or more complicated, than predicting the existence and physical features of fossil intermediates at specific geologic times, and then finding them.

k.e. · 16 April 2006

This reference (which is copyrighted) from an earlier PT thread may be useful.

Steven D. Verhey's article "The effect of engaging prior learning on student attitudes toward creationism and evolution" appeared in the November 2005 issue (55 [11]: 2-9) of BioScience, published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences

It quantifies the pre and post beliefs of the students and includes some of the same reading material. Hope it helps.

harold · 16 April 2006

Dr Allen MacNeil -

I would like to offer another testable prediction. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, I anticipate that you will ignore my post (this is not the prediction, it's a seperate mini-prediction). Before I unveil my real testable prediction, let me summarize some thoughts.

1) A small group of students at Cornell has formed a club to support ID.
2) Knowing little or nothing of the club, I predicted that the members would be adherents of right wing politics. I did not predict that they would have ostentatious fundamentalist Christian beliefs, but I assure you, I would have.
3) Since then, I have learned that the club allows "only Christians" (no Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, please) to serve as officers. Very pleasant. I score that as minor evidence in favor or my prediction. Ironically, a frequent claim of ID supporters, including Hannah Maxson, is that it is NOT religion, at least not in a sectarian sense. So why are Buddhists excluded from club officer positions?

You have written -

"Unfortunately, it seems that demagoguery is not the exclusive purview of the ID side."

For one who argues so hard for politeness, I think it's rather rude to make a generalized and insinuating comment like this without stating exactly what you are referring to.

I also think it would be more polite, and less confusing, if you addressed your comments to others by name, as you are implicitly responding to comments, but don't always make it explicit what you are responding to.

My posts make defensible statements about past events and testable predictions. If you think them to be demagoguery, simply show them to be factually wrong on the evidence. For example, simply by telling me (honestly) that Hannah Maxson is a supporter of the Green Party who follows a tolerant Society of Friends interpretation of Christianity (for imaginary example), you would demonstrate my predictions about her to be false.

Now for my next prediction: As you politely teach your course, you, yourself, will fall victim to lack of politeness. Those students who enter the course committed to ID may or may not start out polite (quite likely not), but some of them will become most impolite as the course progresses and ID is challenged. You will find yourself denounced as an "atheist dogmatic Darwinist" and so on, if not to your face, on ID web sites. At least some of the pro-ID students will abandon the club. (Not all of them will, and you will win some "converts" to mainstream science.)

And here's another prediction. The club will last until the founding members graduate. The ID fad being over, the next generation of hard core College Republican right wing students will put their energyto something else.

I don't want my fairly objective, testable, and, I think, insightful, generalizations about ID to be taken as a denigration of your proposed course, by the way. It looks to me as if you have done an excellent job of organizing a challenging and complete course, and I think it will be a worthwhile experience for those students who are psychologically capable of withstanding a challenge to their belief system.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

My reading of the whole IDC/evolution package is that they are entirely dichotomous arguments. A line has been drawn in the sand which is incapable of being straddled. Everyone I have ever met falls in one of two camps. A) that some external concious entity is in some way intentionally responsible for life on earth, or b) that natural processes can do it without any help by [insert your favorite designer here.]

Is integration even possible? What important particulars, aside from the fact that "we are here", can these two camps ever agree upon?

Your reading is wrong. Do a Goodle for "theistic evolution". It is the position held by the vast majority of Christians worldwide. ID/creationists are under the ignorant delusion that evolutionary biology is somehow anti-god or anti-religion. It isn't. Evolutionary biology is no more "atheistic" than is mathematics, economics, or the rules of baseball. That's why many biologists in the US identify themselves as Christians. That's why all but two of the 14 plaintiffs who filed lawsuit in Arkansas to have creation "science" kicked out of public schools were ministers, clergymen and representatives of religious orders and denominations. That's why every mainstream Protestant denomination on earth accepts ALL of modern science, including evolutionary biology, and sees no conflict between it and Christian faith. In fact, the vast majority of Christians view creationists as doing tremendous HARM to Christianity, by making Christianity look silly, stupid, backwards, ignorant, uneducated and simple-minded. Every time some fundamentalist fruitcake screams "science is atheistic!!!!" at the top of his lungs, he merely reinforces the popular stereotype that people have of "Christians" as half-educated backwoods redneck hicks who live in trailer parks in small southern towns and who probably married a close relative in a ceremony led by Reverend Billy Joe Bob.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

My reading of the whole IDC/evolution package is that they are entirely dichotomous arguments. A line has been drawn in the sand which is incapable of being straddled. Everyone I have ever met falls in one of two camps. A) that some external concious entity is in some way intentionally responsible for life on earth, or b) that natural processes can do it without any help by [insert your favorite designer here.] Is integration even possible? What important particulars, aside from the fact that "we are here", can these two camps ever agree upon?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

After all, what happened the last time that ID got to speak its piece as clearly and loudly as possible? That's right--- Dover.

Yeah verily. Let the IDiots crow all they want. They lost, their crap can't be legally taught in any public school anywhere in the US of A. Game over. They can stamp their feet and whine about it all they want. (shrug) At this point, I'm not sure why anyone should give a flying fig WHAT the DI says, about anything.

k.e. · 16 April 2006

Jay Ray said:

Everyone I have ever met falls in one of two camps. A) that some external conscious entity is in some way intentionally responsible for life on earth, or b) that natural processes can do it without any help by [insert your favorite designer here.]

As pointed out by Freud (A) is called projection. So the 'Intelligent Designer' may be 'Intelligent' in the case of Maxson but completely un self aware. Which always reminds me of an old physics joke Descartes(Of "I think therefore I am" fame) goes into a bar and asks for a drink the barman says how about a blueberry daiquiri? D. says "I don't think..." and disappears. And for science friendly modern theologies they go to some very amusing Lengths to ....er retrofit scripture in light of new discoveries (if they maintain an objective historical fact based belief rather than subjective semiotic interpretation of same)

Mike Z · 16 April 2006

For anyone who may be interested...
Carol Cleland on the legitimacy of historical science (account required to view full text).

scientist-friendly version in Geology:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/reprint/29/11/987

more hard-core philosophy version in Phil of Sci
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/342455&erFrom=3053084781160541457Guest

The basic idea is that both experimental and historical science use reliable (though different) methods for testing hypotheses, and that much of the criticism of historical work comes from a misunderstanding of what makes experimental work reliable.

BTW, the Kansas "minority report" misquoted this article by Cleland in their defense of their revision of the state science standards.

Moses · 16 April 2006

Cornell students are not weak-kneed, muddle-headed sheep who blindly follow the dictates of either their teachers or some distant institute. As just one example, Hannah Maxson (the founder and president of the Cornell IDEA Club) is a junior triple major in chemistry, mathematics, and physics.

What expertise in evolutionary biology does Ms. Maxson have? When does Ms. Maxson abandon the anthropomorphic world-view that causes her to be such a gullible, if highly (albeit narrowly) educated, fool? When do you recognize she has nothing but an ill-informed opinion? Since when is competency in chemistry qualify one to weigh in on evolution? Mathematics? Physics? Especially with a person who seemingly lacks the insight to over-come her narcissisticly-formed anthropomorphic universe? [the rest of the rant erased] Anyway your position that "Ms. Maxson is an academic hot-shot with a rigorous course of study" doesn't refute obviousness of "Ms Maxson is, and remains, ignorant and unqualified and lacking comptence." Competence in one area does not mean competence in another. And, FWIW, her being a hot-shot isn't that impressive. This blog is full of academic hot-shots who recognize their limits of competency and are quite capable of recognizing the limits in the competency of others.

Moses · 16 April 2006

Comment #96703 Posted by Allen MacNeill on April 15, 2006 06:42 PM (e) Unfortunately, it seems that demagoguery is not the exclusive purview of the ID side.

This has been a 140-year war with evolution getting stronger year-in, year-out. Yet the results received with the same personal attacks, illiterate skepticism and hostility. ID is just the latest banner to which the anti-science crowd has rallied. So, to put it in a way that might ring a bell for you: If you beat your wife long enough, don't be too surprised when she pulls out a gun and shoots you because she can't take another beating.

ivy privy · 16 April 2006

Well, I want to organize a Cornell summer school 'class' to teach the controversy regarding the shape of the earth.
— David B. Benson

One obstacle to your plans is that you do not seem to be on the faculty of Cornell.

AR · 16 April 2006

In comment 96708 Salvador Cordova wrote:

I'd like to commend Dr. MacNeill for setting an example of how university discourse should be conducted.

Poor Dr. Neill: a kiss from Salvador....

ivy privy · 16 April 2006

One wonders, then, why they only allow Christians to serve as officers in their little club ......

Sorry Lenny, but that info is out of date as of early January 2006. I encountered Ms. Maxson a couple times while the Christian officers rule was still published on the IDEA Center site. She was unable to verbally acknowledge the existence of the rule, and talked around it. (e.g. the Cornell club has an officer who is not a Christian, the IDEA Center knows about this and has not threatened to take action, etc.) These encounters did not leave me with a good impression of her integrity.

Allen MacNeill · 16 April 2006

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

The trick of course is to be uncompromising as far as evidence and logic go, while being respectful of people.

That's my goal!

I am not as optimistic as you are about the attributes of some of these students: they may indeed be objectively smart and articulate, but I have seen what some Creationists are capable of when their deeply held beliefs are challenged.

Funny thing is, I don't know if any creationists or IDers will sign up for the course. They are a tiny minority at Cornell (less than 10%, according to the statistics that Will Provine and I collect at the beginning and end of our courses), so it may be that the only people who sign up are people who are curious about the issue and those who are already committed to the "evolution side." At least two members of the Cornell IDEA club have expressed an interest in the course, but neither are actually going to take it for credit (and you can't audit summer session courses), so this may all be a tempest in a teapot. Fun, though...

Russell · 16 April 2006

I suspect the majority of ID students will want to discuss evidence supporting ID and not the listed topics. It will be interesting to see how the course evolves.

Well, if the course is intelligently designed - and from my estimation of Dr. MacNeill I'm going to assume it will be - it won't fall into that trap. Going into the course, it's essential to eliminate all the name-calling and vitriol, even just impatience, that almost always come to dominate the discussion. Science stands on its own merits, just as pseudoscience falls on its. In the public (i.e. non-academic) discussion, it seems to be the survival of the fittest PR program. A successful academic examination of the subject will be different. It's constructive, even commendable that Dr. MacNeill ascribes - or at least assumes for the sake of discussion - honest, non-religious reasoning to the ID perspective. That said, if Casey Luskin and Salvador Cordova (and, of course, the only recently amended rule that only Christians could be officers) are any guide to the nature of the IDEA clubs, their statements and positions need to be examined with a healthy dose of skepticism. Likewise, the notion that the Discovery Institute is just a objective, benign, disinterested observer, with trifling or peripheral influence on the ID perspective. I see the "make the best case for the argument you reject" assignment as, again, a commendable attempt to examine the content, and see past the familiar dismissive rhetoric that has crystallized around each side's view of the other. But I second RBH's remarks. If I got the assignment to defend Dembski's work*, I would face an uncomfortable dilemma: (1) being honest but unconvincing (and getting a bad grade?) and (2) being convincing (and getting a good grade?) and less than scrupulous about intellectual integerity. *(Full disclosure: I've only read his "No Free Lunch" and his internet essays.) And finally - but most importantly - the tone of this very comment might be construed as all very "two sides to every argument; the truth must lie somewhere in between (probably the exact midpoint)". If that's the lesson that students take away from the course, it will have been a failure. It will be a success if the students come away understanding, without rancor, the contributions of the "two sides" to the actual dialog of science as, say, represented in the professional literature.

Pete Dunkelberg · 16 April 2006

For instance, it is true, as you say, that there are differences "between the "historical sciences" (such as biology "[I think you mean here "evolutionary biology" - most biology is actually experimental], geology, and cosmology) and the "ahistorical sciences" (such as chemistry, physics, and astrophysics)",....

For the record, evolutionary biology is experimental.

Pete Dunkelberg · 16 April 2006

Why do bad arguments happen to good people?

That they are strongly devoted to a preexisting point of view that is based on neither evidence nor logic, but holds a lot of meaning for them personally. You won't find a pseudoscience (or whatever you wish to call it) that isn't "very wrong" yet for some reason still has intelligent, highly educated people who are strong proponents of it. Even things like geocentrism, which takes us back to pre-Coppernican days, has PhDs who support it. Not many of course, but that they exist at all is pretty amazing. Why this is, I don't know, but Michael Shermer has given what I think is the best explanation: Smart people belive weird things because they're very good at rationalizing positions that they arrived at for non-smart reasons. It may not be a flattering psychological view, but it has nothing to do with them being stupid or liars.
— Steve Rueland

But isn't if hard to maintain the rationalizations in the face of reality? Here is a helpful demon. One must remember this: Voodoo Science : The Road from Foolishness to Fraud As the students in the proposed class will not be biology majors and perhaps not even 'science types', another good reference is Huckleberry Finn.

blipey · 16 April 2006

To Dr. MacNeill:

I certainly don't think that your course is stupid--rather I think it is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be taught and discussed. I believe this based not solely on the need to expose ID has junk, but also as a reminder of how education works.

To everyone else:

I think it is human nature to find things self-apparent once we, ourselves, have learned them. What I find most frustrating about the Evolution / ID discussion is that research and evidence are thrown to the curb by the ID side. And the response from the pro-science side is often to regurgitate the same data and appeal to authority. These are fine things, and true, and cannot on their own merits persuade someone new to the argument.

Often, the best way to really learn a topic is to jump in and do it yourself. Sure, you can learn arithmetic by memorizing tables, and you can learn algebra by memorizing formulae and identities--but will you truly absorb and be able to apply the algebraic principles? Maybe, maybe not; it will probably depend on the interest and aptitude a particular student brings to the subject.

Getting dirty in the arguments and being set adrift in the raw data of a topic can often force a student to come up with his own correct conclusions, by his own personal and more satisfying ways. To quote the mathematician George Shoobridge Carr:

The difference in the effect upon the mind between reading a mathematical demonstration, and originating one wholly or partly, is very great. It may be compared to the difference between the pleasure experienced, and interest aroused, when in the one case a traveller is passively conducted through the roads of a novel and unexplored country, and in the other case he discovers the roads for himself with the assistance of a map.

There are certainly IDiots who know better (The DI crew) and that this doesn't apply to, but I think for a college course it is entirely appropriate, and has the possibility of more profound effect on the discourse around the Evolution / ID argument.

I applaud Dr. MacNeill.

may gravity be kind,

blipey

Salvador T. Cordova · 16 April 2006

PvM, It seems you are supportive of this course, and I should point out in some measure, so might be Eugenie Scott: Anti-evolutionists Form, Fund Think Tank

Ironically, from the standpoint of evolution education, it is far preferable to have anti-evolutionary ideas expressed and debated at the university than in the local school board meeting. Eugenie Scott

Salvador PS

PvM wrote: ...my YEC ignorance.

Happy Easter to you PvM, my ex-YEC friend who has left his YEC roots to follow after the writings of Charles Darwin. Thank you for your links to my posts at Uncommon Descent and for standing up for people of faith at PandasThumb. But please know, the YEC community would welcome you back like a prodigal son should you so choose to return to your true roots.

harold · 16 April 2006

As a non-demagogue, I modify my hypotheses in the face of conflicting data.

I'm feeling mighty good about the majority of my predictions. The IDEA club is almost certainly an enclave of right wingers who excluded non-Christians until attention was drawn to that, Hannah Maxson is almost certainly a right wing type who claims to be a fundamentalist Christian (a poster here has expressed doubts about her personal integrity, based on experience, which fortifies my prediction). Allen MacNeil has ignored my posts and failed to clarify what he meant by his statement about demagoguery.

But I made one poor prediction. I predicted that ID-loving students in Dr MacNeil's course would become hostile and uncivil when ID was challenged. What's wrong with this prediction? After all, this is what would happen if an IDEA student took the course. Here's what's wrong with the prediction...

It makes the foolish assumption that a kool-aid drinking member of IDEA would TAKE a course that challenges ID! Silly, silly me to make such an error.

Of course they won't take the course. It challenges ID! Are you beginning to get the picture, Dr MacNeil?

AB wrote "The trick of course is to be uncompromising as far as evidence and logic go, while being respectful of people."

I strongly agree. Respectful of PEOPLE, including of their religious traditions. There is no need to feign exaggerated "respect" for politically motivated, disingenuous pseudoscience based on painfully obvious logical fallacies, however.

Allen MacNeill · 16 April 2006

At the risk of seeming tediously repetitious, here is what I posted earlier in this thread:

My own position is very strongly on the side of evolutionary biology (i.e. in the tradition of "methodological naturalism"). Consequently, I disagree very strongly with the positions of Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, and other representatives of the Discovery Institute. I will therefore be attacking both their positions and the metaphysical assumptions upon which they are based with as much logic and vigor as I can muster. At the same time, I have invited members of the Cornell IDEA Club to participate in the course and to explain and defend their beliefs and positions. From my previous interactions with them, I expect that they will make an equally forceful and well-argued case for their position. The students taking the course will be expected to follow the arguments, participate in them, and come to their own conclusions, which they will then be required to defend to the rest of us. Regardless of whether they agree with me or with my opponents, their work will be judged on the basis of logical coherence and marshalling of references in support of their arguments.

I honestly believe that, once this process has worked its way out, the position of evolutionary biologists such as Ernst Mayr (i.e. that it may be legitimate for evolutionary biologists to refer to adaptations as teleological, but that the process by which such adaptations have evolved (i.e. natural selection) is NOT a purposeful process as far as we can tell) will be the position that the majority of the students in the seminar will hold. As I have already noted, this will probably be because the majority of the students who take the seminar already hold that position. So be it.

Salvador T. Cordova · 16 April 2006

ivy privy: I encountered Ms. Maxson a couple times while the Christian officers rule was still published on the IDEA Center site. She was unable to verbally acknowledge the existence of the rule, and talked around it. (e.g. the Cornell club has an officer who is not a Christian, the IDEA Center knows about this and has not threatened to take action, etc.) These encounters did not leave me with a good impression of her integrity.

Such is the way ad hominmen arguments are leveled. That rule was publicly viewable on the ideacenter website, there was no secrecy about it. But to set the record straight there are chapter charter officers and then there are officers who are part of the recognized school organization. The chapter charter officers are the ones who are recognized by the IDEA Center, and the chapter may exist before, with, or autonomously in relation to the actual school organization. For example, at GMU, the chapter was recognized as an official IDEA chapter 1 year before the university recoginized another set of individuals to head the recognized university organization. The university organization had it's own constitution and operating guidelines, and no theology requirement for the officers. That is to say the university organization has a life of its own and can technically reliquish it's affiliation with the IDEA Center. Under previous rules, the only requirement was the Charter founder had to be a professing Christian, there was nothing explicit about the university officers owing to the fact most university policies arguably preculed any theology test for membership (this is a legally ambigous situation where some courts say universities can set such policies and some courts say not, i.e. Christian Legal Society). In any case, such things are a moot point now, and I don't appreciate all the ad hominems being leveled here at PT at temperate and well meaing college junior. The previous requirement made it easier for IDEA to reach out to people of faith who resisted learning about evolutionary theory. Many would be unenthusiastic to attend IDEA meetings had they felt the those involved were not concerned and respectful of their personal views (which is more than I can say for most professors I've encountered). I'm pleased to say, more Christians have been exposed to Darwinian and evolutionary ideas through our club than they would have otherwise. We have given speakers such as Dr. Robert Hazen (respected OOL researcher) and Dr. Karl Fryxell (head of MA Medical Genomics at GMU) free reign to argue their case as vigorously as possible. In any case, the IDEA Center tried something in the past, and it's trying something new.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

Hey Sal, are you gonna answer my simple questions, or aren't you.

Put up or shut up, Sal.

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2006

Pete:
sure there's a lot of experimental evolutionary biology, but most of it, and the parts that are most controversial, are those that refer to the reconstruction of past phylogenies and the mechanisms that account for them. That's quintessentially historical.

Still, my point is that the results and conclusions of historical disciplines are not intrinsically less worthy of confidence than those of experimental disciplines. For instance, I don't see our understanding of, say, vertebrate evolution as particularly more theory-laden or uncertain than our understanding of elementary particles. As I said before, it seems to me that this is more of an issue of temporal-physical scales, and the consequent requirement for interpretative models, than of "historical" vs "experimental" per se. Regardless, I think this is an important point for students and the public to understand, as creationists always muck up and try to exploit the issue.

Allen:
It is interesting that no IDEA students have chosen to take the course, you'd think they'd flock to it... I still think however that you should work under the assumption many of your students will be at least sympathetic to ID/Creationism.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

I'm pleased to say, more Christians have been exposed to Darwinian and evolutionary ideas through our club than they would have otherwise.

But ID isn't about religion. No sirree Bob. It's just them lying atheistic darwinists who say so. Right, Sal? Thanks for making it so crushingly clear for all the new lurkers, Sal, that (1) ID is nothing but fundamentalist Christian apologetics, (2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it isn't, and (3) Judge Jones was (despite all the whining from IDers like Sal) perfectly correct when he concluded that it is.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

such things are a moot point now

Yes, they are indeed moot. After all, ID has already presented its best case in court, and lost. Crushingly and embarrassingly. Game over. (shrug)

harold · 16 April 2006

Salvador Cordova -

You seem to suffer from a common misunderstanding of the term ad hominem.

It does not mean "insult", "criticism", or even "slander".

It does not mean speculating, accurately or inaccurately, about the motives of an opponent. This tactic is, I concede, a commonly used means of illogical argument (eg "scientists support evolution because they are atheists", an example of an inaccurate statement about motives being used as an illogical argument against evolution).

Ad hominem refers to a particular type of logical fallacy - using an irrelevant characteristic of an opponent to dispute an opponent's argument. Usually the irrelevant characteristic is insulting, but it need not necessarily be so.

Sometimes consideration of motives may be relevant, incidentally. Especially when a position can be shown to be transparently false at a logical or evidentiary level, it is often of value to speculate as to the motive of those who persist in holding it. For example, why do some people refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS? What do these people have in common? (And are you one of them?, I'm tempted to ask.) So I sometimes do speculate, in a testable way, about the political motivations of ID supporters.

ivy privy · 16 April 2006

Such is the way ad hominmen arguments are leveled. That rule was publicly viewable on the ideacenter website, there was no secrecy about it. But to set the record straight...
— Salvador T. Cordova

To set the record straight, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cordova was not present on either occasion to which I alluded. I asked Ms. Maxson to acknowledge the existence of the IDEA Center rule. She could not or would not. She could have said, "Yes, they have that rule but...". Nope. She tried to talk her way around it without acknowledging it. Yes, the rule was publicly viewable. I had viewed it. That's why I knew her failure to acknowledge it was less than forthright.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

I sometimes do speculate, in a testable way, about the political motivations of ID supporters.

Fortunately, there is no need to speculate on their political motivations. They are quite open about them.

alienward · 16 April 2006

Andrea Bottaro wrote:

I think some people here should calm down a bit. Teaching about Evolution, Creationism and ID at the college level is not only entirely acceptable, but it is very much opportune, and probably necessary at this point. And if someone has to do it, who better than a person who knows evolutionary biology and is committed to science, as opposed to some creationist engineer, or chemist, or philosopher?

Who better --- anyone who knows ID is not science and will say so up front. Not someone wil ing to placate everyone by pretending this is a scientific debate. Here's Allen MacNeill quoting himself:

In answer to some of my critics from evolutionary biology, therefore, I feel that it is very appropriate for this kind of discussion to take place in a science course, rather than just a history or philosophy of biology course. Students, including science majors, are far too often not given enough credit for their ability to both formulate and judge rational arguments in a free and open forum of ideas. Despite the fact that the topic is ostensibly the philosophy of science, the debate over the validity of ID versus evolutionary theory is fundamentally a scientific debate.

Again, from the IDEA Center:

Does IDEA take a position on the age of the earth? The age of the earth is not an issue related to intelligent design theory, nor is it necessarily even related to the validity of evolutionary theory, nor is it even related to the validity of religions, including Christianity.

That one question alone, shows ID isn't science and involves deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. I'll calm down when either MacNeill admits ID vs evolutionary theory isn't any more of a scientific debate than astrology vs astronomy or the president of Cornell fires his ass.

Jay Ray · 16 April 2006

Do a Goodle for "theistic evolution".
— From Lenny

I'm familiar with theistic evolution. I'm familiar with Eugenie Scott's continuum. I would not call T.E. an ID approach. Perhaps it is a straddler if you loosen the standards a bit. I know that many Christians accept science, and good for them. Unfortunately, recognition of T.E. does not answer my original question about the course--unless "integration" means turning everyone into a T.E.? Does MacNeill mean to do that? I think this course could be a good thing. Allen MacNeill seems sincere, polite, knowledgable, thorough and patient. My hope is that any students who take this course slide a notch or two up the continuum.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

Despite the fact that the topic is ostensibly the philosophy of science, the debate over the validity of ID versus evolutionary theory is fundamentally a scientific debate.

(sigh) The naivete of so many scientists never ceases to amaze me. ID is fundamentally (pardon the pun) a POLITICAL debate. It is all about political power, who gets to have it, and what they get to do with it. It has nothing to do with "science" or "philosophy of science". It doesn't even really have anything to do with religion (other than its theocratic POLITICAL goals). Too many scientists seem to have this naive idea that all we have to do is teach some science to the poor rubes and they will slap themselves in the forehead, exclaim "Lo! I've been wrong these many years!" and ID will fall. Let me point out that ID was killed, dead, by a handful of ***lawyers*** in Pennsylvania. All of our much-vaunted "science education" didn't do a damn thing. Just like the staged "debates" between IDers and "evolutionists", this class, and all others like it, won't change anyone's mind. Since ID is not ADOPTED by people for scientific reasons, they won't GIVE IT UP for scientific reasons, either. The whole debate simply is not about science.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

I would not call T.E. an ID approach.

Neither do the IDers. (grin)

Salvador T. Cordova · 16 April 2006

To set the record straight, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Cordova was not present on either occasion to which I alluded. I asked Ms. Maxson to acknowledge the existence of the IDEA Center rule. She could not or would not. She could have said, "Yes, they have that rule but...". Nope. She tried to talk her way around it without acknowledging it. Yes, the rule was publicly viewable. I had viewed it. That's why I knew her failure to acknowledge it was less than forthright.

I don't take much credence from annonymous posters making claims about actual history which bears on a person's integrity. You should be one to make claims about being forthright.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 16 April 2006

Brother Harold of Delta Pi Gamma said: It makes the foolish assumption that a kool-aid drinking member of IDEA would TAKE a course that challenges ID!

I disagree with brother Harold. I think that IDEA club members will take the course, not with the intent of having their ideas challenged but rather to steer the discussion towards a positive airing of ID principles. Since this is not a lecture course students will have more control over where the discussion goes and it's in the best interest of IDEA club members to steer the discussion so that ID is presented in the best possible light. Having students argue other view points will help prevent this hijacking but I would expect a certain lack of enthusiasm when students present alternative viewpoints, this goes for both sides.

In frustration the alienward writes: I'll calm down when either MacNeill admits ID vs evolutionary theory isn't any more of a scientific debate than astrology vs astronomy or the president of Cornell fires his ass.

The course is not billed as a scientific debate or an attempt to address the scientific issues. Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Registered User · 16 April 2006

Allen you wrote

From my previous interactions with them, I expect that they will make an equally forceful and well-argued case for their position.

Once again, I ask you: what is the equally forceful and well-argued scientific case for the existence of mysterious alien beings designing the universe "intellignently"?

If there is not such a case, then why do you pretend that there is?

If I was in the position to teach a course in ID (and I am) it would go something like this: "Inane Liars: The Rise and Fall of the Intelligent Design Movement." And the course would document the history of creationism and the most visible public peddlers, including some folks you've had the chance to meet right here in this read (e.g., Salvador Cordova who has been caught telling the most blatant and clear lies on this blog and has never admitted and apologized for doing so).

Allen -- ask Hannah her opinion of Salvador Cordova. Does Hannah think Salvador is honest? Does she know about his documented behavior here and elsewhere? Could she defend Salvador's integrity and credibility given what's been documented here and elsewhere? That might be a "learning experience" for Hannah but somehow I don't think Hannah will be interested.

You see, in the sort of a course I will teach, students would learn facts about the world and the way that certain human beings choose to interface with reality -- including other human beings -- during their short time on earth. And it's important history to teach. Those who fail to learn history are, of course, doomed to repeat it.

sarcasm on (for those who need to be warned): I'm also going to teach a class on racism and bigotry. About half the class will be spent encouraging students to defend the collected writings of David Duke and Fred Phelps. Should be very interesting. I look forward to hearing the equally forceful and well-thought arguments for discrimination based on skin color and the Bible. sarcasm off.

Registred User · 16 April 2006

Steve Reuland

Smart people belive weird things because they're very good at rationalizing positions that they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Like Michael Shermer, evidently.

It may not be a flattering psychological view, but it has nothing to do with them being stupid or liars.

No, it has to do with doing semantic backflips to avoid concluding that someone is beings stupid or lying.

Yes, humans do rationalize positions that turn out to be bogus. But when exposed to the facts, some humans admit their mistakes and are thankful for the education.

Others behave differently.

Russell · 16 April 2006

... ID isn't science and involves deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary theory. I'll calm down when either MacNeill admits ID vs evolutionary theory isn't any more of a scientific debate than astrology vs astronomy or the president of Cornell fires his ass.

Now, really. While I agree with Judge Jones, John Marburger, and some of Dr. MacNeill's detractors that ID is not science, and - personally - I see discussion of it more aptly filed under "Philosophy of Science" or "History of Science", or "The Science/Society Interface" than under "Science", per se... isn't this "fire his ass" talk the sort of thing that lends credence to accusations of McCarthyism?

[Andrea Bottaro:] And if someone has to do it, who better than a person who knows evolutionary biology and is committed to science, as opposed to some creationist engineer, or chemist, or philosopher?

[alienward:]Who better --- anyone who knows ID is not science and will say so up front. Not someone wil ing to placate everyone by pretending this is a scientific debate. I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a philosophy course on "Logical Fallacies" just because it didn't announce, up front, its opposition to them.

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2006

Alienward and Lenny:

I can't speak for Dr. McNeill, but it is my impression he knows full well that ID is not science, and that the ID movement is very much a political movement. This does not preclude the fact that, if we want to understand (and teach) why ID is wrong, we have to talk scientifically, both in terms of evidence and epistemology (and, I may add, that is the only fun and interesting way to talk about it, at least to my taste).

Why otherwise would we at PT put so much effort addressing the "scientific" claims of ID, and highlighting the scientific evidence for modern evolutionary theory? The upside is, of course, that if you discuss ID in this way, not only you debunk it, but you learn some interesting and useful stuff in the process.

By all means, ID is very much a political issue and needs to be fought against, but the best weapon we have to fight it is that ID is demonstrably wrong scientifically. Dover may have been won by lawyers, but try asking them how much science they had to learn in order to do so.

Finally, I think there is a bit of confusion going on. Saying that there is a "scientific debate" about ID among professional scientists (which clearly is not the case), is clearly not the same as saying that one can scientifically debate the validity of ID vs evolutionary theory (which clearly is possible, as one can scientifically debate a flat-earther, or a young-earther).

Registered User · 16 April 2006

Under previous rules, the only requirement was the Charter founder had to be a professing Christian

Like a lot of gay people? Could you be gay and a professing Christian and a Charter founder, Sal? Under the old rules? What about under the new rules?

Answer the questions, Sal, and be honest. Try really really hard.

By the way, are there any openly gay people employed at the Discovery Institute?

Just curious. There are a lot of openly gay people who are scientists. Since the Discovery Institute allegedly employs scientific researchers I'd expect to find some gay researchers there unless there was some sort of bias against them. Are there any, Sal? What about gay lawyers?

Under previous rules, the only requirement was the Charter founder had to be a professing Christian

And why was that the case before, Sal? Seems a little odd to me given all the rhetoric from the DI that "ID theory" isn't necessarily religious.

And you seem to imply that you changed the rules for legal reasons. I find that amusing.

PvM · 16 April 2006

I don't take much credence from annonymous posters making claims about actual history which bears on a person's integrity. You should be one to make claims about being forthright."
— Salvador Cordova

Nice ad hominem here... Guess the fact that this person claims he was there and observed this kind of behavior could not possibly be correct? Perhaps Salvador can defend the claim by Maxson such as, or are these also hard to accept?

But high tensions notwithstanding, his mischaracterizing of Intelligent Design has such a blatant disregard for facts as to require a response. 1. Intelligent Design is no more a religious belief than Evolution itself. It is a 2. scientific theory which holds that 3. many features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not as the result of an undirected, chance-based process. Intelligent Design theory is 4. a testable hypothesis subscribed to by many educated scientists today; moreover, it was a belief in 5. intelligent design, and thus a rational universe, that led to science as we know it. When Darwin posited his theory, little was known about the complexity of living organisms and many thinking people accepted his writings as fact. But much has happened since then. 6. The advent of the microscope, the discovery of DNA, the "failure" of the fossil-record -- these all make it impossible to give Darwinian Evolution the free ride it once had. In the words of H.P. Yockey, from the Journal of Theoretical Biology: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written." But must we take it on faith?
— Hanna Maxson
Letter To the Editor: Intelligent Design incorrectly explained in Opinion piece March 08, 2005 The Cornell Daily Sun

Can Salvador explain the positive arguments of Design? Can Salvador explain why he believes that ID is not scientifically vacuous? Can Salvador provide us a competing hypothesis of the origins of the bacterial flagellum? Sal has lots of rhetoric but when it comes to defending ID he has consistently failed. I believe that IDEA centers and courses like Allen's will do science a great favor by exposing the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design, the religious foundation and motivations of Intelligent Design. By showing how teleology in nature is an inevitable outcome of natural processes, by showing that ID fails to present any positive scientifically relevant hypotheses about ID, by showing that ID is based on ignorance about evolutionary theory, such courses can expose that which many ID activists have been trying to hide from their followers namely that ID fails to be scientifically relevant, is based on ignorance and is theologically risky and unnecessary.

PvM · 16 April 2006

IDEA center: Our Beliefs

Like any organization, IDEA itself is not without its own biases. Our mission statement plainly says that "[a]t the heart of our advocacy is to promote intelligent design theory purely on its scientific merits."

What intelligent design theory exists that proposes scientifically relevant hypotheses? In fact, my argument is that ID is scientifically vacuous/

We recoginze (sic) that investigating over origins raises questions that are both religious and scientific in nature, but we are careful not to mix scientific claims with religious claims, and recognize that the two are distinct and different, though complementary to one-another.

ROTFL, but IDEA center officers had to be Christians... Again, what scientific claims exist relevant to ID? Explain why these claims are scientific and relevant to ID.

Our ultimate hope is that people can at least learn about theories of "intelligent design" and be made aware of the many problems with purely naturalistic explanations for the existence of life.

What are these mythical theories of intelligent design other than problems with scientific explanations? What are some non-naturalistic explanations (i.e. supernatural) for the existence of life? Argument from ignorance

By exposing the lack of scientific evidence supporting the assertion that natural processes are purely responsible for life and conveying the empirical evidence supporting intelligent design theory, we hope to bring to light the value of intelligent design theory and cause people to evaluate their own beliefs.

First of all science does not say that natural processes are purely responsible for life but rather that science provides natural explanations for life. Secondly, other than ignorance, there is not empirical evidence supporting intelligent design theory, unless one argues that since ID embraces methodological naturalism, that all science is empirical evidence for ID but that makes ID scientifically vacuous.

So, we admit, IDEA does have an agenda and a bias. And, just as we encourage each other to admit bias at our events, the leadership of IDEA freely and publicy acknowledges its own bias: We believe that life is not the result of purely natural processes, but that it was in some way designed by an "intelligence." And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.

ID requires the supernatural, hence the religious faith statement is strongly and historically inherently linked to Intelligent Design. And what about IDEA center leaders which do not believe that the identity of the designer is God of the Bible, can they still be officers? Can such an IDEA center still be part of the original organization?

Bruce Thompson GQ · 16 April 2006

Re: Lenny Flank's The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short).

Lenny

The only conceivably applicable anagram I could find for your FRASMOTEM was FORMATS ME. Was that your intention?

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

PvM · 16 April 2006

Intelligent design is a scientific theory which says that some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause.

That by itself is a vacuous statement. First of all it presumes that it is a scientific theory but as I have shown, it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance namely that if we cannot explain something using regularity and chance (natural) explanations, it should thus be intelligently designed. Secondly, ID does not provide any positive hypotheses, allowing one to test if it is indeed the 'best explanation'. Finally, intelligent cause is nothing more than a supernatural cause, which is argued to remain once regularity and chance (natural processes) have been eliminated. This pretty much argues that the intelligent designer is outside nature although ID activists sometimes and logically inconsistently, argue that this also includes 'natural intelligent designers' such as extraterrestrials but logically such a position cannot be supported and in fact the position of ID activists is that such an intelligence inevitably has to be the Christian God. Sober, in a recent paper, has argued how ID's intelligent designer has to be inevitably supernatural. So far, despite some feeble attempts (see UD), ID activists have failed to address these comments in a logical manner.

Intelligent design begins with observations about how intelligent agents act when they design things. In short, intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that are produced by the action of intelligent agents.

ID uses the term complexity in a confusing and misleading manner. Complexity basically means nothing more than 'natural processes (regularity and chance)' that we know so far, do not explain 'X', thus 'X' must have been designed. As an additional requirement ID requires a specification but in biology this is trivially found in 'function'. Since function is an inevitable teleological outcome of evolutionary processes, all ID has to offer is that there are systems in biology which we do not fully understand (at least not with sufficient detail to the likings of ID activists) that we have to conclude that it was intelligently designed. The problems with this are countless: false positives are plentiful, complexity is based on our present day understanding, no positive hypotheses of ID exist, ID refuses in fact to give such (pathetic) details, while holding science to a much higher standard of being able to explain every single step involved in the evolution of a particular system. And last but not least, ID insists on the designer to be supernatural although it conflates its thesis often with 'natural designers' such as humans when arguing that archaeology, criminology etc all involve 'intelligent design', forgetting that such real sciences are based on positive evidences such as motive, means and opportunities, not on the argument from ignorance. As Wilkins and Elsberry have in full detail documented ID conflates such regular design from 'rarefied' design which is based solely on our ignorance. Most damning to ID is the lack of any positive, scientifically relevant hypothesis of an intelligently designed system. Based on this, it should not have come as much of a surprise that Judge Jones ruled as he did, pointing out that ID is not science (I'd argue that it is scientifically vacuous), and that it is intrinsically tied to a religious belief. All ID activists have to do is show a positive, scientifically relevant hypothesis of ID. Arguing that a particular Darwinian process is unable to achieve a particular system is insufficient although this has been the main focus of ID 'research', where the term 'research' is used loosely to describe the efforts to show that the Cambrian explosion, DNA, information in the genome, etc cannot be explained by Darwinian theory. Efforts which have been effectively rebutted by scientific progress, showing that relying on one's ignorance to infer design, is full of false positives.

Russell · 16 April 2006

The advent of the microscope, the discovery of DNA, the "failure" of the fossil-record --- these all make it impossible to give Darwinian Evolution the free ride it once had.

...In 1953, DNA was discovered. The evolution establishment realized that although a) natural selection can explain variations within a species (microevolution), nevertheless, b) natural selection by itself cannot explain the evolution of one species into another species. A new species has new genetic information programmed into its DNA which the old species lacked. To plug the hole in the evolution model, the evolutionists proposed that random mutations of the genetic code supplies the new information.

What a remarkable coincidence! It's almost like there's an underground traffic in ignorant factoids. One hopes that Dr. MacNeill's course will not give these kinds of ID "arguments" a free ride!

gwangung · 16 April 2006

I don't take much credence from annonymous posters making claims about actual history which bears on a person's integrity. You should be one to make claims about being forthright.

The dishonesty and hypocrisy of this statement is apalling.

Speaking of being forthright, how about answering Lenny's statements and challenge? If there's a scientific theory of ID, it should be simple enough (you could even put it in a macro).

Nick Matzke · 16 April 2006

Re: Lenny Flank's "The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). Lenny The only conceivably applicable anagram I could find for your FRASMOTEM was FORMATS ME. Was that your intention?
— Bruce Thompson

FRASMOTEM was coined by Paul Nelson in a discussion with Lenny Flank on PT, archived here, and I think it's a very good term for the inevitable successor to ID, which makes no positive claims whatsoever about the creator/designer and simply bashes evolution with old, dumb creationist arguments and claims it is therefore secular and constitutional to teach in public schools.

Nick Matzke · 16 April 2006

And many thanks to Nick Matzke for your brief but useful discussion of disanalogies between adaptation and teleology. Is there a reference on this (besides Dawkins, who is already on my reading list)?

You know, I can't think of a good specific example of an article doing this in the way I specified. The distinctions are often made by evolutionary biologists, but often the people who are interested in the topic are pretty strong adaptationists and they prefer to say "the appearance of design is real, but it is explained by such-and-such" rather than saying "the appearance of design is actually just superficial and if you look at biology closely it actually doesn't appear to be designed." This is a pretty fine distinction, and I think most biologists would agree with the second phrasing if they thought about it, but it only becomes noteworthy when the ID movement tries to take the "appearance of design" statements and turn them around back into an argument for intelligent design.

Bruce Thompson GQ · 16 April 2006

Thanks Nick

So only a couple of months ago, aahhh life with 2 neurons to bad they don't fire at once. I remember the exchange, especially the offer of free beer, but not the acronym. Considering the stamp molded nature of ID troops I thought the anagram might be some sort of super secret DI code.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

Re: Lenny Flank's The Fundamentally Religious and Scientifically Misbegotten Objections to Evolution Movement" (FRASMOTEM for short). Lenny The only conceivably applicable anagram I could find for your FRASMOTEM was FORMATS ME. Was that your intention?

It was actually Paul Nelson who invented that term, back when he, like Sal, was actively avoiding answering any of my simple questions. You can read all about it at: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nelson.html

Registered User · 16 April 2006

isn't this "fire his ass" talk the sort of thing that lends credence to accusations of McCarthyism?

Sigh.

Can we try to remember this simple rule: ANY kind of talk about evolution or intelligent design that doesn't explicitly point out that creationists are either lying or stupid lends credence to SOME creationist accusation about those who understand the agenda of creationists.

That is how professional spinners and propagandists work. I mean, geez, these are people who take the fruits of the labor of professional researchers and use them for the sole purpose of smearing the credibility of those researchers livelihood.

And this is why I and others here are disappointed in the naivety of Allen MacNeil. Does a well-considered thoughtful scientist in 2006 title a course entitled, "Evolution and ID: Is There Purpose in Nature" and then make pandering gestures to IDEA club students?

Really freaking dumb, if you ask me.

Registered User · 16 April 2006

Pim

I have found the ID activists' arguments that neutrality and convergence are somehow better explained by Intelligent Design to be mostly vacuous.

What about my argument that the purpose of gravity is to make sure that we don't fly off the earth.

Mostly vacuous?

Or just butt stupid?

Pete Dunkelberg · 16 April 2006

For the reading list:

Evolution vs. Creationism : An Introduction (Paperback)

by Eugenie C. Scott.

Registered User · 16 April 2006

I think it's a very good term for the inevitable successor to ID, which makes no positive claims whatsoever about the creator/designer and simply bashes evolution with old, dumb creationist arguments and claims it is therefore secular and constitutional to teach in public schools

Let's call it "anti-science" bigotry where the bigotry is rooted in religious dogma of one sort or another.

It's like anti-gay bigotry. Except that scientists and their methods are under attack instead of gays and their sexual orientation.

This topic will be explored in detail in my upcoming seminar series: "Sexual Orientation and The Bible: Is Being Gay Evil?" Half the class will be devoted to human anatomy and neurology. The other half will be devoted to the scholarly writings of Jim Dobson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. I look forward to the forceful and well-thought arguments from participants representing both views.

Registered User · 16 April 2006

Hannah Maxson, Cornell Triple-Major and IDEA club prez, wrote:

The advent of the microscope, the discovery of DNA, the "failure" of the fossil-record --- these all make it impossible to give Darwinian Evolution the free ride it once had.

Pop quiz: if Hannah Maxson's resume appeared on my desk and I recognized the name from these discussions, would it be "McCarthyism" to dump the resume in the waste basket and move on to a candidate who hadn't previously revealed his or herself to be utterly clueless at an age when one should know better?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 16 April 2006

I think it's a very good term for the inevitable successor to ID, which makes no positive claims whatsoever about the creator/designer and simply bashes evolution with old, dumb creationist arguments and claims it is therefore secular and constitutional to teach in public schools

We've already had that. It was called "teach the controversy", and it, uh, hasn't done very well.

Russell · 16 April 2006

Pop quiz: if Hannah Maxson's resume appeared on my desk and I recognized the name from these discussions, would it be "McCarthyism" to dump the resume in the waste basket and move on to a candidate who hadn't previously revealed his or herself to be utterly clueless at an age when one should know better?

No. However, if you called for the firing of every professor that declined to call her an idiot, I'd say you had gone over the edge. Look. I have reservations about this approach. But I think calling for the firing of anyone who has a different view is just not a very healthy attitude. We're talking here about teaching about the ID movement; we're not talking about teaching ID. It may be unfortunate that the Dembskis and Cordovas are extracting PR advantage out of it. And I'll be a little disappointed if they don't live to regret their enthusiasm. But "fire his ass"? Come on.

Salvador T. Cordova · 16 April 2006

PvM: Can Salvador explain the positive arguments of Design?

I could, but you would have to show your definition of positive evidence is consistent with the implicit definition of positive evidence being used by the IDers. For example, do we have positive evidence perpetual motion machines can't be made? That is a similar situation here, abiogensis followed by Darwinian evolution is to information dynamics what perpetual motion machines are to the thermodynmics: a myth. So what the positive evidence that such myths don't exist, hmm, uh....we don't see such artifacts arise in the lab apart from intelligence no matter how hard we've have tried. Reminds me of those cobalt bomb experiments where we thought we could accelerate evolution. What a disaster. Or the countless OOL experiments that have fallen flat on their faces. Plenty of positive evidence the myth didn't happen. With that in mind, the positive evidence against abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution abounds, just as much as the positive evidence against perpetual motion machines abounds. Note : neither perpetual motion machines, naturalistic abiogenesis, nor large scale innovation via Darwinian evolution has been directly observed. I mean if absence of evidence can be considered positive evidence against perpetual motion machines, then absence of evidence can be used against abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution in large scale biological innovations. And positive evidence against naturalistic abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution is positive evidence for ID in the language of IDers, much like the lack of perpetual motion machines is positive evidence for the first law of thermodynamics. Albert Voie's paper outlined why no law of nature, nor any law of nature to be discovered can solve the OOL problem. Information dynamics transcends physical law. His paper passed peer review.

Can Salvador explain why he believes that ID is not scientifically vacuous?

ID can be derived from physical law, mathematics, and information theory alone. Further, the Darwinist conception has hindered understanding of developmental biology and the understanding of non-coding DNA. Had the design perspective dominated, we might have avoided the waste of time defending failed ideas. With the emergence of systems biology, the architecture of the system will be far more important than whether Darwinian evolution was the root of it's design. Even if one does not subsribe to ID, in practice, biotic reality is treated as if it has a design. We're already half-way there. Thus it is not vacuous.

Can Salvador provide us a competing hypothesis of the origins of the bacterial flagellum?

Yes, but you would have to specify what you mean by "origin". One might be able to specify the origin as being designed, without knowing the "manufacturing details". In that case, the competing hypothesis has been provided, namely it is designed. Are you willing to believe somethings are designed without knowing the manufacturing details? I would hope so. If you're demanding what the designed manufacturing process is, then that is beyond the scope of design theory. Design theory does not require those details to succeed in a detection any more than one needs it to detect design in man-made artifacts. However, the converse is not true for Darwinian evolution. For it to be plausible, the narrative has to make sense from a naturalistic perspective, thus the details make the hypothesis more believable. For example, if mount rushmore could be carved out by wind and rain, describing the meteorological conditions that could achieve this would make the story plausible. Otherwise, it is at least a reasonable hypothesis the mount rushmore was designed.

PvM asserts: By showing how teleology in nature is an inevitable outcome of natural processes,

That is only an assertion, it has not been proven. It's a mathematical fact that evolutionary algorithms can only solve a very limited set of structures, and that only under highly well-designed feedback/control situations will the structure be resolved if the structures are sufficiently complex. It's pure assertion without any theoretical or empirical backing that biotic reality are the kinds of structures that are resolvable by evolutionary algorithms, and that even if they were, it's pure assertion in the face of many contrary facts that such algorithms effectively existed in nature. The only reason it's accepted is the priority of the blindwatchmaker paradigm, not because of any real science. I expect the blindwatchmaker paradigm to fail, and the design paradigm to prevail.

David B. Benson · 16 April 2006

Bad memes --- ID is a bad meme, but as with all memes, exists only to replicate itself. Memes are duplicators, imitators.
(See 'mirror neurons' and the article on red apes in the latest issue of Scientific American.)

Unfortunately, ID has mind-numbing effects, unlike the 'Marzy doats' from the musical "Oklahoma!" which I sometimes can't get out of my head...

haroldlanceevans · 16 April 2006

I think that Allen MacNeil is doing a wonderful thing, and I support his course even more than I did before. Sure, it's irritating that he feels obliged to feign exaggerated respect for a tiny cabal of bigoted, not entirely honest, politically motivated students and their hypocritical parroting of the buzzwords generated at at "distant Institute". But his course is still a great idea. Here's why...

In my original comment, I mentioned that ID is dead, but the stake needs to be firmly driven through its heart.

Essentially, ID is now so dead that Prof MacNeil feels quite comfortable teaching a course which will, without question, come to the official conclusion that ID is scientifically and logically vacuous, to the extent of serving as a counter-example that clarifies valid scientic work. He may or may not mention its purely political nature, and I feel that the course will be incomplete if he does not.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is, ID is now so infamous and discredited that professors feel quite comfortable teaching it as an example of a wrong idea, like Lamarckism or Ptolmeic astronomy (both of which had a great deal more merit and honesty than ID, of course).

How many NY Times editorials arguing for Ptolmeic astronomy or Lamarckism do you see?

The stake is in place, and Prof MacNeil is one of the first guys to swing the hammer. Let's not complain too much that he swings to gently.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 16 April 2006

Guess the fact that this person claims he was there and observed this kind of behavior could not possibly be correct?

We know from recent experience that even people willing to sign their names to claims can be present at an event and completely misunderstand it.

Russell · 16 April 2006

ID can be derived from physical law, mathematics, and information theory alone.

Can it, indeed? Why has no one done it?

Further, the Darwinist conception has hindered understanding of developmental biology and the understanding of non-coding DNA. Had the design perspective dominated, we might have avoided the waste of time defending failed ideas.

Right. And if it weren't for those dang Luddite Darwinists, pigs would not only be flying, they'd have a vigorous space exploration program.

much like the lack of perpetual motion machines is positive evidence for the first law of thermodynamics.

Really? First of all, I was under the impression that the it was the second, not the first law of thermodynamics that predicted that a perpetual motion machine would not be possible. And, while the demonstration of a perpetual motion machine would tell us that the law was wrong, no, the lack of it does not constititute positive evidence - for anything.

I expect the blindwatchmaker paradigm to fail, and the design paradigm to prevail.

I'll alert the media, shall I?

PvM · 16 April 2006

PvM: Can Salvador explain the positive arguments of Design?
— Sal
I could, but you would have to show your definition of positive evidence is consistent with the implicit definition of positive evidence being used by the IDers.

I guess the answer is no, given the attempt to redirect. Does this mean that when ID activists claim that ID hypotheses best explain 'X', they are 'full of it'?

Stuart Weinstein · 16 April 2006

Cordova Writes:
"I could, but you would have to show your definition of positive evidence is consistent with the implicit definition of positive evidence being used by the IDers."

Sort of like Behe's implicit definition of science which, when asked under x-examination included Astrology.

You want permission to make up definitions for terms well defined by philosophers and scientists?

Sorry Sal, permission denied. There's bee enough abuse of scientific jargon by creationists. Its gotten so bad, that on t.o, at least once a week somebody claims macro-evolution was coined by creatobabblers. Thats not true of course, but the term has been sullied by your ilk.

"For example, do we have positive evidence perpetual motion machines can't be made?"

Not only is there no empirical evidence for the xistence of perpetual motion machines; there is no theoretical frame work for which this is possible. In other words, the corallaries of theories which well explain multiple facets of the natural world also exclude perpetual motion machines.

"That is a similar situation here, abiogensis followed by Darwinian evolution is to information dynamics what perpetual motion machines are to the thermodynamics: a myth."

World salad. Information is a mathematical description; it is not a force of nature.

"information" has no bearing on whether abigenesis is possible or not.

"So what the positive evidence that such myths don't exist, hmm, uh....we don't see such artifacts arise in the lab apart from intelligence no matter how hard we've have tried."

With respect to perpetual motion machines, they contradict natural laws which have been verified to an astonishing degree of precision. In other words, there is more to suggest that perpetual motion machines don't exist besides the fact that nobody has been successful at making them.

With respect to abiogenesis type experiments, the intelligence is irrelevant. Scientist recreate conditions for which the evidence indicates existed during the period when life arose on Earth. Thats about the extent of the "intelligence" involvement. There is no natural law or scientific theory which explicitly or implicitly states abiogenesis is impossible. This is not the case with perpetual motion.

"Reminds me of those cobalt bomb experiments where we thought we could accelerate evolution. What a disaster. Or the countless OOL experiments that have fallen flat on their faces. Plenty of positive evidence the myth didn't happen."

Evolution happens, whether it was accelerated in "cobalt bomb experiments" or not.

With respect to OOL life experiments, you assume their goal was to create life. In fact the goal is usually to study some potential part of the pathway. To say they've all fallen flat, is a neat spin on your part.

By the way, what aspect of life is missing here:
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

About the only thing one can suggest, is that Sidney's protocells lack the ability to evolve. However, since you don't except evolution, thats hardly an objection you yourself can raise.

"With that in mind, the positive evidence against abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution abounds,"

Lets have some.

Your argument is basically that we haven't done it yet. We don't have breakeven fusion yet either. Stars however, don't seem to have this problem.

"just as much as the positive evidence against perpetual motion machines abounds. Note : neither perpetual motion machines, naturalistic abiogenesis, nor large scale innovation via Darwinian evolution has been directly observed. "

Have you directly observed a neutrino?

Is it your position that felons convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence be freed from prison?

After all, there crimes were not directly observed.

"Direct observation" is the last resort of the incompetent.

(Sorry Issac).