ID Moving On in Fighting the Culture War

Does anyone know who John West of the DI is? I just saw him on TV. Is attempting to accomplish what Dembski could not? Boy was he bashing the Thomas Moore Law Center is there really bad blood there? Why?

Has anyone looked at John West's new book? I just saw him on TV and Oh boy was he bashing the Thomas Moore Law Center is there really bad blood there? Why is West mad I should think the law center was the one wronged?

So how do we refuse to go to war? I'd love to see a post on the specifics of doing that, because I think for scientists and sicence students, the natural tendency is to simply debate with others- because we believe we have the evidence on our side, so we aren't afraid of getting into discussions about science, because if the evidence is there, it will prove us right, and if it isn't there, then we'll change our views accordingly.

What seems less natural is this idea of having to 'frame' an issue. People should look at the evidence and make up their own minds based on that, not based on how clever at spinning a topic somebody like ann coulter or william dembsky is. But of course, people aren't logical and rational. they believe lies that they are told, even pretty flimsy ones, because many of them aren't interested in thinking critically about issues like science.

So how can we frame the issue to get through to these people, without duking it out in a 'war on science' that we would lose because people are stupid and creationists are happy to play dirty? it seems like a tough ask, so where do you start?

Framing the issues is what it's all about. That's what the Republicans and the Bush administration has been done so successfully in the five years since 9/11. Challenge them on military strategy? The answer is 9/11. Challenge them on budget deficits? 9/11. Challenge them on tax cuts? 9/11. Challenge them on health policies? 9/11. The answer to everything has been couched in terms of 9/11, national security or Islamic terrorism. Bush's brain, Karl Rove, has successfully kept Bush in office through framing every issue in terms of 9/11 and terrorism.

I don't attribute anything like the same power to the DI and its acolytes---they lack the power of a White House bullhorn---but they do have a willing group of politically active people, America's fundamentalists, who probably feel that with Bush they are tantalizingly close to the holy grail of national political power for which they've thirsted for more than forty years. And they'll be damned if they'll let that power slide beyond reach. But, if they frame the issue correctly, from their perspective that is, they're money ahead in that in theory they'll have all the Christians on their side and nothing but atheists and agnostics on other. Of course, that's a false dichotomy, but falsity never stopped them before (except when they found themselves in court).

An awfully large number of Christians, mainstream denominations and the Roman Catholics, are not natural allies of the DI so whoever leads the opposition to the DI needs to be backed by both rational Christians and American secularists. The latter two groups still comprise a majority in this country, even if many strayed into Bush's camp in 2004. So whoever does lead better not stake the flag on the back of secularists alone. If they do, we'll lose.

So how do we refuse to go to war?

Eiseley's argument that Darwin had borrowed from Blyth based on of a similarity in terminology has been disproven, on the grounds that Darwin used the term before he could have read Blyth, and because Darwin had clearly developed some of the focal planks of his theory by that point, observations made in rebuttal by Beddall 1972 and 1973 and Schwartz 1974 to Eiseley's claims 4 to 6 years before his literary executors reissued his earlier essays. See also Ospovat. The Eiseley view is repeated on the web at this site. Gould says something about this that is worth repeating, and I am indebted to a respondent named Seth Jackson for bringing it to my attention: "The following kind of incident has occurred over and over again, ever since Darwin. An evolutionist, browsing through some pre-Darwinian tome in natural history, comes upon a description of natural selection. Aha, he says; I have found something important, a proof that Darwin wasn't original. Perhaps I have even discovered a source of direct and nefarious pilfering by Darwin! In the most notorious of these claims, the great anthropologist and writer Loren Eiseley thought that he had detected such an anticipation in the writings of Edward Blyth. Eiseley laboriously worked through the evidence that Darwin had read (and used) Blyth's work and, making a crucial etymological mistake along the way (Gould, 1987c), finally charged that Darwin may have pinched the central idea for his theory from Blyth. He published his case in a long article (Eiseley, 1959), later expanded by his executors into a posthumous volume entitled "Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X" (1979)." Yes, Blyth had discussed natural selection, but Eiseley didn't realize --- thus committing the usual and fateful error in this common line of argument --- that all good biologists did so in the generations before Darwin. Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse --- but with a crucial difference from Darwin's version: the usual interpretation invoked natural selection as part of a larger argument for created permanency. Natural selection, in this negative formulation, acted only to preserve the type, constant and inviolate, by eliminating extreme variants and unfit individuals who threatened to degrade the essence of created form. Paley himself presents the following variant of this argument, doing so to refute (in later pages) a claim that modern species preserve the good designs winnowed from a much broader range of initial creations after natural selection had eliminated the less viable forms: "The hypothesis teaches, that every possible variety of being hath, at one time or other, found its way into existence (by what cause of in what manner is not said), and that those which were badly formed, perished" (Paley, 1803, pp. 70-71). Darwin's theory therefore cannot be equated with the simple claim that natural selection operates. Nearly all his colleagues and predecessors accepted this postulate. Darwin, in his characteristic and radical way, grasped that this standard mechanism for preserving the type could be inverted, and then converted into the primary cause of evolutionary change. Natural selection obviously lies at the center of Darwin's theory, but we must recognize, as Darwin's second key postulate, the claim that natural selection acts as the creative force of evolutionary change. The essence of Darwinism cannot reside in the mere observation that natural selection operates - for everyone had long accepted a negative role for natural selection in eliminating the unfit and preserving the type." Gould, S. (2002). The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Page 137. The Gould 1987c reference is to An Urchin in the Storm, but no page reference is given.

I think the idea that we don't take them up on their offer is the best idea. Disprove them when they make claims, promote good science (and civilized discussion without name-calling), but don't charge into the battle, because we're letting the IDers set the stage, the rules, and the territory if we do. They want a culture war, and they've got no qualms about lying, decieving, or tearing America apart to win.

One thing to remember is that their tactic is this - it's to remove the middle ground. They KNOW they're not convincing any of us. They know they're not convincing a good chunk of America. Their goal is to produce division and contention and hope more people end up on their side that the side of rationality and civility. We can refuse to give it to them and help minimize the tactic.

As for beyond that - that's going to be more complex. Promoting good science, teamwork among the pro-science people, building alliances (I had read in The Humanist recently about a scientist that actually arranged pro-science events at local liberal churches), etc. are important. We don't have to fight their WAR, but we do have to stay active.

Salvador Cordova and Edward Sisson appear on the Coral Ridge Hour. Why anybody would want to be associated with D. James Kennedy is beyond me. Icky yucky blech.

Does anybody know what Ted Haggart (unification church in colorodo springs) is up to?

this guy at one point (still does as far as i know) had regularly weekly phone calls with GW to discuss "policy".

If you haven't a clue who I'm talking about, this is the mega-church preacher Dawkins confronted in "root of all evil"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6690702357039658996&q=dawkins+root+of+evil&hl=en

You don't hear much about him on the blogs, and I wonder why that is.

I think Jack Krebs is right: "This is not about science and never has been. Perhaps now ID can just die away, and we can focus on the real issues."
The real issue is morality, not science. We can't just tell people that science has nothing to say about morality and decency. It appears that evolution strongly encourages the development of good behaviour in social species such as humans, and we need to celebrate this and explain it to those who might think otherwise. To me, the destruction of the Nazi regime in WWII is an example of cultural evolution selecting against heartless social structures in favor of those with more kindness and charity, which is very good news indeed.

So does anyone here think that "intelligent design is very much a hypothesis which simply states that design is the set theoretic complement of chance and regularity"? Does that sound like a claim from an evolutionist or an IDist?

the destruction of the Nazi regime in WWII is an example of cultural evolution selecting against heartless social structures in favor of those with more kindness and charity

Also, how about "the ID hypothesis has many flaws and short comings but to argue that this is not a scientific hypothesis is like saying that young earth creationism is a priori unscientific"? Does that sound like an evolutionist position?

The destruction of the Nazi regime is an example of a country with greater capacity for military production defeating a country with lesser capacity, as well as the loser making strategic errors due in part by being run by a megalomaniac.

True, but both countries were run by megalomaniacs: the only difference is that Stalin had better allies.

This never was IMHO a scientific debate but rather cultural and by extention political. Now they are dropping the science angle and being honest about it. Fighting this is unavoidable, so what should the rules of engagement be?
1. Show their premise to be false. Science is not theology. Nor is it an either or choice, if one accepts modern science based on the evidence that does not automatically make one an atheist. Ask them why there are so many Christians that do accept evolution without loosing faith in their God?
2. Continue to show their potiential audience that ID is not science but theology.
3. Be polite and respectful towards them, no insults or personal attacks. We don't need to make them look silly or out of touch with reality, they do that without our help.
4. When they do look silly and out of touch with reality we should point it out: blaming Darwin for Nazi genocide is like blaming the Wright brothers for 9/11.
That's my two cents worth.

Science is not a search for THE TRUTH,. It isn't about finding the most rational or logical explanation for the phenomena observed in nature. It isn't a fair and openminded debate where all points of view are equally valid and presented to a neutral audience who then can choose which "theory" works best for them and is to be taught in public school science classes, and it is not a comittment to a philosophy of materialism where nothing exists other than matter in motion under the blind and uncaring forces of nature for no apparrent purpose. Science is a methodology where questions are asked about the universe or some part of it the answers to which come from experiments and observations. These experiments and observations have to be done in such a way that the results are repeatable (others doing the same observations and experiments under the same conditions will come up with the same results), publishable and peer reviewable (your peers are your competitors). If this sounds like a long tedious process where gains are made by millimeters over decades that's because it is. Science isn't something you believe in, it is something that you do. Usually for a living. Science produces technology and some understanding of the workings of the universe and what we must do to thrive in it. This technology provides good high paying jobs and opportunities for entrepreneurship. You can't count on manna from heaven by sheer belief alone. If the culture warriors are convinced that science is evil and materialistic then the challenge is for them to rid themselves of all the fruits of technology in their lives and go back to the hunter-gatherer state that would follow. The progress of science won't stop by gutting it's education in public schools, it will only stop in America. Somewhere in China and India educators and parents are reading about the efforts of the Discovery Institute and its allies and they are smiling. Intelligent design is not a scientific alternative to evolution, it is a metaphysical alternative to science.

I notice that they (according to the quotes provided) also equate supernaturalism with "Judeo-Christianity".

So my suggestion is that we refuse to go to war... but we need to do an equally good job of resisting their attempts to distort religious, cultural and political issues. To do this effectively, we need to avoid their divisive approach and the polarization it produces. We can argue civilly and persuasively for tolerance and diversity in a secular society without acceding to their misrepresentations of such a position.

Hi, long-time lurker here. If you mean to suggest that we should not engage in this culture war, I disagree. To the extent that we are a part of this culture, this society, we are responsible for how it manifests, and thus have an obligation to be involved in shaping what it becomes. If your meaning is simply that we should not engage it on their terms, I agree, but I would argue that what we need to do is re-frame the issue and argue it proactively. To re-frame it would alter and expand the audience who hears it.

One thing I would love to see happen - and you can bet it never will - is that classes which teach students to think critically and logically, and to be able to identify non-sequiturs be introduced into the high school curriculum. They might then, just possibly, be less easily swayed by the weapons of fear and misinformation that barrage us now.

I wonder how many of those elected officials who argue in favor of "critical analysis" of evolution would be willing to pony up the money it would take for high schools to teach students to evaluate arguments and to think critically?

And why shouldn't parents lobby their PTA's and BoE's to thus alter the curriculum? Seems to me that if the DI and far right is arguing that America is being lied to, misled and fed a diet of misinformation by the "liberals" (whether in the context of evolution, global warming, same-sex marriage, or violence on tv), they would be behind a push in public education to teach students how to read polls, and to recognize rhetoric from fact and so on.

That is how I would reframe the issue.

That having been said, I tip my hat to you and everyone else here who is acively involved in pushing back against the lies and misinformation by the religious right and their fellow travelers.

Hi Tim, and others who have commented.

I agree heartily with Tim that we need to proactively engage the cultural issues, but not as if we were "at war", and I agree we should work to frame things in our way rather than working in their framework. I also think that our framework shouldn't be equally black-and-white and divisive (because seeing things as black-and-white and divisive is part of their framework.)

A few weeks ago there was a great Doonesbury strip where a reporter was questioning Bush, and at one point said in exasperation, "The 'debate' you're willing to have is always between options of your own choosing."

This applies to us: we need to decide what we think the issues are and present our case about those issues, putting their positions as we see them into our persepctive. We also need to address our concerns to the middle of the spectrum - people who are not yet polarized.

In fact, one of the key issues needs to be polarization and divisiveness itself. Things are usually not black-and-white, and we owe it to others, both as fellow citizens and fellow human beings, to try to understand the complexity and ambiguity of issues together without trying to force anyone into a definitive "our side or heir side" conclusion.

"In fact, one of the key issues needs to be polarization and divisiveness itself. Things are usually not black-and-white, and we owe it to others, both as fellow citizens and fellow human beings, to try to understand the complexity and ambiguity of issues together without trying to force anyone into a definitive "our side or heir side" conclusion."

I agree. However, politicians don't stay in power this way. They stay in power by convincing people to fear something and then telling them who is to blame (the other side). Ignorance and knee-jerk reactions in their constituents are how those in power stay in power. Ah, imagine a world where leaders lead with knowledge and wisdom, and intellectual discussion is used to develop ideas and determine policy...

Jack wrote: In fact, one of the key issues needs to be polarization and divisiveness itself. Things are usually not black-and-white, and we owe it to others, both as fellow citizens and fellow human beings, to try to understand the complexity and ambiguity of issues together without trying to force anyone into a definitive "our side or heir side" conclusion.

You're right about divisiveness and polarization, in my opinion. People are being trained to think that it's quite alright to demonize and objectify those they disagree with. A recent visit to a conservative blog offered tee-shirts emblazoned with a big yellow smiley face and the slogan "Imagine No Liberals". How can that be any more acceptable than the same shirt saying something like "Imagine No Jews", or "Imagine No Koreans"?

However, while it is evident, to anyone who take a moment to look and think, that all issues are complex and can't and shouldn't be boiled down to sound-bites, talking points, and false dichotomies, the Right's response to it being pointed out that there is complexity is that we are victims of woolly thinking and practitioners of hand-wringing.

So, from where I sit, getting people to acknowledge complexity is an ends, not a means. The question is by means do people come to ask questions, to understand that there may be more to an issue than what is being flogged and blogged?

Again, all that I can think of - and this is a neutral approach - is to get people to start discussing what constitutes an argument, what constitutes a fallacy? How does rhetoric work to obscure an absence of facts and so on? It's not hard to imagine that such a conversation as that could take place between any two people (at the water cooler, around drinks or coffee), regardless of their political or religious p.o.v. And if we care what young people are being taught - and I think most people do (either because they are parents or partisans or both) - then there's an incentive to include them in such a discussion. Ultimately, as I said above, we need to make critical thinking a part of the curriculum for public schools.

That's a nice roundup of ID activities, Jack, but you forgot to mention the Discovery Institute's secret research program. Paul Nelson said so.

The war against science isn't currently being fought in colleges or even high schools. Take a look at Jimmy Carter's recent book, "Our Endangerd Values". In there he describes the transformation of the Southern Baptist conference from a socially liberal organization (ie flat flexible ecumenical structure, relatively tolerant, advocate for equality, focused on doing good works for the community) to a harshly conservative one (ie highly rigid authoritarian structure, totally intolerant, advocate for the subserviance of women, focused on doing good for the church).

The culture wars are being fought (and won) in the churches. Note the shrinking memberships of the "main stream" Protestant and Catholic churches. How does one fight in this kind of war?

My wife was recently talking with a friend of hers, a high school student. The family is fundamentalist Xian, and we've known them for a couple of years. The kid recently discovered that my wife is not a church-going Xian, and has rather strong feelings against fundamentalism. The kid responded incredulously, "But, how can that be? You're so nice!"

My suggestion? Do what Christ did for the Christians, what Ghandi did for India, and MLK Jr. did for Blacks. Become active in your community. Do good works. Get involved. Be kind, tolerant, and charitible. Show by your deeds that your world view is successful and valuable. Lead with your works. Then, follow with your words about how your world view leads you to do good things. Stand up mildly but firmly for tolerance and understanding.

Will this work against committed trolls on fundamentalist blogs? No. But it may make a difference in your community.

Hopefully it willl make a difference in one girls life.

Of course, this war is about science aswell, but not only science. This is in deed a war of worldviews, and "not going to war" is exacly what allowed ID to grow and gain the publicity it has now. If you think you can change people's hearts and minds by poiting out to religious people who accept Darwinism, you are going to have a rude awakening, Jack.

Sure, many people are skepical of Darwinism for religious reasons, but not everyone falls into the group. It's safe to say that most people are naturally skeptical of claims that unguided forces had the ability to generate the jaw-dropping complexity present in biological life forms.

Therefore, one prediction can be made: The design hypothesis will never go away since it's the natural conclusion we make based on simple observation. What proponents of unguided evolution want us to accept is totally against logic and reason. You are free to believe in that, but don't be surprised if most people don't.

"What proponents of unguided evolution want us to accept is totally against logic and reason."

Sez you.

What's your area of expertise again? You know, the one that enables you point out that all the scientists in the world who accept evolution are wrong and you are right because... um, because? (Hint - religious apologetics don't count.)

"The design hypothesis will never go away since it's the natural conclusion we make based on simple observation."

Could you give an example of a naturally occurring organism which shows ANY proof of design? And why? (Hint - the flagellum don't count).

"conclusion we make based on simple observation."

SIMPLE observation would suggest the entire universe revolves around the earth. Is that a good example of logic and reason for ya?

Is he describing Uncommon Descent?

:-/

Sure, many people are skepical of Darwinism for religious reasons, but not everyone falls into the group. It's safe to say that most people are naturally skeptical of claims that unguided forces had the ability to generate the jaw-dropping complexity present in biological life forms.

Just to clarify, my comment 123334 was in response to the dude with the russian-like name and not Mats. Looks like one troll went bye-bye.

We can't just tell people that science has nothing to say about morality and decency.

— James A

It appears that evolution strongly encourages the development of good behaviour in social species such as humans, and we need to celebrate this and explain it to those who might think otherwise.

— James A

I notice that they (according to the quotes provided) also equate supernaturalism with "Judeo-Christianity".

— Keith Douglas

There's one thing that I consider very important: to refute the false dichotomy these guys are setting up.

The false dichotomy is supernaturalism/mysticism vs. pure subjectivism and total moral relativism.

Naturalism and extreme relativism are actually two seperate propositions. I personally am a naturalist and an atheist who does not subscribe to moral relativism. I think that there *are* moral principles for the same reason there are principles in engineering: because the universe has a nature and some things work better than others.

Of course, my view of morality is very different from the fundamentalist Christian view. I do not, for example, believe that homosexuality is a moral issue at all. I consider moral issues to be primarily those that involve harm and interference between individuals such as murder, deception, theft, etc. I think that a good and very solid argument from human nature and natural principles (including the nature of economies and complex systems) can be made for moral ideas such as the reciprocal principle (do unto others...) and the categorical imperative.

The dichotomy these guys want to set up is between order through religion and total anarchism. It is of *absolute* importance to deny them that dichotomy by pointing out the existence of strong rational and natural arguments for moral principle.

One way of describing my views that I use frequently is to say that "right makes might." In other words: moral principles are those that, when followed, lead to a better and more vital human existence.

to reject ID merely because it has been hijacked or had alterior motives, misses the point that there IS a scientific component to ID, however vacuous it may be. We may all want to deny such but that would merely play in the hands of the ID movement

It appears that evolution strongly encourages the development of good behaviour in social species such as humans, and we need to celebrate this and explain it to those who might think otherwise. Whatever you're concluding from this is a philosophical perspective and is not science.

I agree strongly with Adam that we need to "unframe" the dichotomy that one either believes in absolute God-given morality or one is a nihilistic moral relativist.

For an example of what we need to work against, go to http://www.kcfs.org/kcfsnews/?p=185 to see what Salvo magazine published about this.

I agree strongly with Adam that we need to "unframe" the dichotomy that one either believes in absolute God-given morality or one is a nihilistic moral relativist.

(Of course, this could lead to fundies employing a True Scotsman argument that atheists aren't really men.)

Evo-Devo?

"It's a Long Way From Amphioxus"

A fish-like thing appeared among the annelids one day.
It hadn't any parapods nor setae to display.
It hadn't any eyes nor jaws, nor ventral nervous cord,
But it had a lot of gill slits and it had a notochord.

Chorus:
It's a long way from Amphioxus. It's a long way to us.
It's a long way from Amphioxus to the meanest human cuss.
Well, it's goodbye to fins and gill slits, and it's welcome lungs and hair!
It's a long, long way from Amphioxus, but we all came from there.

It wasn't much to look at and it scarce knew how to swim,
And Nereis was very sure it hadn't come from him.
The mollusks wouldn't own it and the arthropods got sore,
So the poor thing had to burrow in the sand along the shore.

He burrowed in the sand before a crab could nip his tail,
And he said "Gill slits and myotomes are all to no avail.
I've grown some metapleural folds and sport an oral hood,
But all these fine new characters don't do me any good.

(chorus)

It sulked awhile down in the sand without a bit of pep,
Then he stiffened up his notochord and said, "I'll beat 'em yet!
I've got more possibilities within my slender frame
Than all these proud invertebrates that treat me with such shame.

My notochord shall turn into a chain of vertebrae
And as fins my metapleural folds will agitate the sea.
My tiny dorsal nervous cord will be a mighty brain
And the vertebrates shall dominate the animal domain.

(chorus)

Posted by Andrew McClure on August 27, 2006 04:22 PM (e) James A wrote: We can't just tell people that science has nothing to say about morality and decency. Science doesn't have anything to say about morality and decency... pretty much by definition, really. If we decide to make things otherwise, the IDers have won in redefining science. James A wrote: It appears that evolution strongly encourages the development of good behaviour in social species such as humans, and we need to celebrate this and explain it to those who might think otherwise. Whatever you're concluding from this is a philosophical perspective and is not science. It also sounds likely to me to be a terrible philosophical perspective, since evolutionary processes are by nature wholly amoral and reward those and only those practices which contribute to the propagation of genetic material.

Thanks Anonymous_Coward for your post.

I agree with Andrew McClure's comment that nature is "wholly amoral", but this process has led to some species whose members cooperate and share with one another, because it is useful to do so. Why should selection bother to maintain a strongly developed moral sense in humans if it doesn't contribute to the propagation of genetic material in the long run? Fundamentalist groups may be fascinating examples of selection in action at the group level. Notice how they encourage their members to have many children. Religion may be around a long time if it comes from (where else?) a process of random mutation and natural selection over millions of years.

Science has discovered that moral behaviour is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

Why should selection bother to maintain a strongly developed moral sense in humans if it doesn't contribute to the propagation of genetic material in the long run?

And you don't see a lack of consistency in your argument?

Why shouldn't moral behaviour fit your criteria of "reward those and only those practices which contribute to the propagation of genetic material" ?

Science has discovered that moral behaviour is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

I agree with Andrew McClure's comment that nature is "wholly amoral", but this process has led to some species whose members cooperate and share with one another, because it is useful to do so.

— James A

It's also lead to species

Science has discovered that moral behaviour is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

Why shouldn't moral behaviour fit your criteria of "reward those and only those practices which contribute to the propagation of genetic material" ?

Science has also discovered that immoral behavior is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive. (Not that there is any scientific "need to keep the species alive".)

— Popper's ghost

Science has shown that evolutionary processes can result in behavior which happens to coincide with popular forms of human-defined morality. I don't think this is any more interesting than the observation that evolutionary processes have also created structures which coincide with the design of human-created outboard motors. (Except maybe in the context of some argument that the popular forms of human-defined morality actually were byproducts of an evolutionary process...)

— Andrew McClure

Science doesn't have anything to say about morality and decency... pretty much by definition, really.

— Anonymous_Coward><quote author=

Science has also discovered that immoral behavior is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

It's also lead to species where one male keeps a mass harem and kills the male children, species where the female eats the male after sex, and populations which seek their maximum by means of malthusian overpopulation and mass dieoffs. It is crucial to keep in mind that just because something is the way things happen in nature does not mean that they're good things in a human context. For example, it's fine--- though probably not very useful in an argument about politics--- to hypothesize that some human moral systems exist as a result of evolution. But it wouldn't follow from that that those moral systems are particularly good ones.

Science has discovered that moral behaviour is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

Why shouldn't moral behaviour fit your criteria of "reward those and only those practices which contribute to the propagation of genetic material" ?

Science has also discovered that immoral behavior is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive. (Not that there is any scientific "need to keep the species alive".)

— Popper's ghost

Science has shown that evolutionary processes can result in behavior which happens to coincide with popular forms of human-defined morality. I don't think this is any more interesting than the observation that evolutionary processes have also created structures which coincide with the design of human-created outboard motors. (Except maybe in the context of some argument that the popular forms of human-defined morality actually were byproducts of an evolutionary process...)

— Andrew McClure

Science doesn't have anything to say about morality and decency... pretty much by definition, really.

— Anonymous_Coward

OF COURSE, science has something to say about morals.

Science has also discovered that immoral behavior is something that can evolve naturally out of the need to keep the species alive.

It's also lead to species where one male keeps a mass harem and kills the male children, species where the female eats the male after sex, and populations which seek their maximum by means of malthusian overpopulation and mass dieoffs. It is crucial to keep in mind that just because something is the way things happen in nature does not mean that they're good things in a human context. For example, it's fine--- though probably not very useful in an argument about politics--- to hypothesize that some human moral systems exist as a result of evolution. But it wouldn't follow from that that those moral systems are particularly good ones.

In Popper's ghost's case, it is intellectually dishonest to switch and bait.

Hey, at least I gave a supporting example.

I demonstrated quite well that you switched to another argument that in no way addressed what I posted.

Quite intellectually dishonest to not admit that you committed that error (consciously, or more possibly, reactionary) and brush it aside as inconsequential.

Just like Creationists.

There also seems to be a significant kinship component, protecting those individuals most likely to share your genes. Human history shows that it's generally been considered "moral" to slaughter neighboring tribes --- especially their men --- and take their resources to share amongst your tribe.

— Popper's ghost

It's also lead to species where one male keeps a mass harem...

— Andrew McClure

... and kills the male children, species where the female eats the male after sex, and populations which seek their maximum by means of malthusian overpopulation and mass dieoffs.

— Andrew McClure

The false dichotomy is supernaturalism/mysticism vs. pure subjectivism and total moral relativism.

— Adam Ierymenko

Nature: Clearly the best source of moral education ever!

I agree with Shaffer's comments, but they need to be broadened. There are many religious/philosophical belief systems other than just fundamentalist Christianity and atheism - those are two poles of a complex spectrum. I

I don't completely see that.

It seems more like atheism and theism are poles of a complex spectrum of religious/philosophical belief system, while fundamentalism/literalism v its opposite (I am not sure of the exact label) of either atheism and theism are like a separate axis at right angles to the theism-atheism axis which is more political than it is spiritual/philosophical.

It's already a common occurrence to fudge the communist-capitalist and liberal-authoritarian axes into one, and we can easily see the uselessness of discussions in which the distinction isn't made there.

Good point. The purely religious/philosophical issues are at least logically separate from the cultural/political ones, although in today's world there is a lot of overlap of at least the far end of the religious and the political issues.

It seems more like atheism and theism are poles of a complex spectrum of religious/philosophical belief system, while fundamentalism/literalism v its opposite (I am not sure of the exact label) of either atheism and theism are like a separate axis at right angles to the theism-atheism axis which is more political than it is spiritual/philosophical. It's already a common occurrence to fudge the communist-capitalist and liberal-authoritarian axes into one, and we can easily see the uselessness of discussions in which the distinction isn't made there.

— Anonymous_Coward

Jack Krebs and Shaffer, you highlight the issues well.

Jack makes the typically bigoted remarks that Demski has "sunk" to teaching at a seminary or referring sneering to Judeo Christian supernaturalism, all the while pretending that he is the "civil" one.

And typically he suggests that we "refuse to go to war".

Just like he engineered the boycott of the hearings last summer, he thinks he can repeat it by hiding.

In the meantime, he allows his site to be a forum for atheists to attack religion in general, allowing the most vicious remarks to remain up.

This has nothing of course, to do with science.

So I put it to you:

If IDists can be motivated by religion, why is it not the case that evolutionists are often, not always, motivated by atheism.

Dawkins, Dennet, and Sam Harris admit it.

Why can't you?

If IDists can be motivated by religion, why is it not the case that evolutionists are often, not always, motivated by atheism. Dawkins, Dennet, and Sam Harris admit it. Why can't you?

allowing the most vicious remarks to remain up.

Just like he engineered the boycott of the hearings last summer, he thinks he can repeat it by hiding.

— Emanuel Goldstein

If IDists can be motivated by religion, why is it not the case that evolutionists are often, not always, motivated by atheism.

You know, all these Good Christiansâ„¢ keep telling me evolution=atheism, maybe I've been an atheist all these years and just never noticed. They couldn't all be wrong, could they? I mean, what are the chances that every single one of them could be simultaneously wrong about it? One or two, sure, but all of them?

I must be an atheist. I'll stop denying it.

Boy, that's a load off my mind. Will this free up any spare time? I mean, I can stop reading the Bible, but am I obligated to start worshiping Charles Darwin? I've never actually read Origin of Species, will that get me kicked out? I hear there are secret atheist churches (Lenny knows what I'm talking about), will someone in the conspiracy give me an address or do I have to go through initiation first?

Since the primary reason to be an atheist is to be freed from sexual mores (Huxley said so, according to the Good Christiansâ„¢, who cannot lie), I suppose the most important question is, are atheist chicks hot? Wait, I just remembered who Richard Dawkins is married to. Man, I should have done this years ago.

Thanks, Good Christiansâ„¢, you've changed my life!

(The preceeding post presented in Sarcasmoscope.)

I would estimate that the blatant dishonesty (and thus hypocrisy) of most ID proponents, who routinely lie, distort, quote mine, and resort to ad hominems in service to their arguments, causes more people to reject religion than any scientific theory ever could.

If IDists can be motivated by religion

If IDists can be motivated by religion, why is it not the case that evolutionists are often, not always, motivated by atheism.

I demonstrated quite well that you switched to another argument that in no way addressed what I posted.

Quite intellectually dishonest to not admit that you committed that error (consciously, or more possibly, reactionary) and brush it aside as inconsequential.

Refuting specific errors of argument is necessary, but tends to be drowned out by the din of a thousand barking fundies.

Jack, Adam, Keanus and Shaffer have zeroed in the key components - dismantling false dichotomies and undercutting existing frames with new ones. New terms and phrases of discussion are needed that invoke progressive points of view, and fortunately we are just now entering an era that makes it possible to get this kind of discourse going at low cost. Forums like this are one starting point, and the rise of video sources like YouTube are opening up new fronts.

The progressive DailyKos site dwarfs the conservative blogosphere. Dialogue, it turns out, is a natural advantage for the progressive perspective. There has never been a better opportunity to introduce progressive memes.

But it has to be done on a daily and consistent basis. I think the real disadvantage for progressives now is that we're communicating with the broader public on a limited and intermittent basis. Younger people tuned into the Net are better exposed to progressive ideas than most, but there are still a lot of people getting their news from TV.

It's not enough to have a powerful message. It has to be delivered effectively, and I think Gore moved in the right direction when he established Current. AirAmerica is another good move.

So to answer leah, I think we start by developing more media channels specifically geared to exposing people, without apology, to progressive ideas and progressive frames. We have to go where the people are, and go there daily. We already have the web, but we need more TV, radio, newspapers, magazines.

BTW, A_C, you should be able to sympathize with my error, since you wrote as if Andrew McClure and I are virtually interchangeable. But I never claimed that science has nothing to say about morality; on the contrary, I wrote "Science has also discovered ...", and went on to write "develop a priori criteria for which behaviors are moral and which are not, and then develop a scientific model showing that the former are favored by evolution over the latter", which is all about applying science to morality; I am, after all, a scientific materialist, and consider human moral judgments as well as every other phenomenon in the universe to be amenable to scientific analysis. But that doesn't mean that whatever some human considers moral (which differs considerably among humans in specifics as well as generally) is a consequence of biological evolution; as I noted, memetics may be a better explanatory framework in many cases -- to explain why, for instance, many people consider blasphemy or flashing a breast during the Superbowl to be immoral. Heck, some people feel that the Superbowl itself is immoral.

Please ... the word is led.

Yeah, the rapid replacement of "led" with "lead" even by literate writers and in scholarly works illustrates how quickly a viral meme can spread in today's interconnected world, even when it is contrary to previously well-established usage and authority and introduces ambiguity where there was none.

BTW, A_C, you should be able to sympathize with my error, since you wrote as if Andrew McClure and I are virtually interchangeable. But I never claimed that science has nothing to say about morality; on the contrary, I wrote "Science has also discovered ...", and went on to write "develop a priori criteria for which behaviors are moral and which are not, and then develop a scientific model showing that the former are favored by evolution over the latter", which is all about applying science to morality; I am, after all, a scientific materialist, and consider human moral judgments as well as every other phenomenon in the universe to be amenable to scientific analysis. But that doesn't mean that whatever some human considers moral (which differs considerably among humans in specifics as well as generally) is a consequence of biological evolution; as I noted, memetics may be a better explanatory framework in many cases --- to explain why, for instance, many people consider blasphemy or flashing a breast during the Superbowl to be immoral. Heck, some people feel that the Superbowl itself is immoral.

Why shouldn't moral behaviour fit your criteria of "reward those and only those practices which contribute to the propagation of genetic material" ?

How does disapproving of blasphemy, Janet Jackson's nipple jewelry displayed on TV, or the Superbowl contribute to the propagation of genetic material? To question that claim (as I do) does not mean that I don't think science can say anything about morality, just that the answer is not nearly that simple. The problem is that "moral behavior" is not limited to the sorts of obvious elements of social cohesion mentioned in the TO article --- which, checking back on it, only offers an explanation for altruism.

but they are extensions of basic behaviour patterns that did arise due to selection pressures

I have to abstract a lot of details away to get my point across. And since I'm not pursuing any degree in biology or anthropology, I don't really have any use for developing a complete thesis.

Well, if your point is simply that moral judgments can be scientifically studied, fine, but you went way beyond that, and I see no reason to think that your stronger claims are valid. The fact is that there are plenty of people who do have degrees in biology, antropology, psychology, and other relevant fields who have put in a lot of effort to develop cultural/memetic explanations for human moral judgments that are far more sophisticated than the rather vague and tautologous notion that the "moral" restrictions of organized religion such as sanctions against blasphemy, displays of nudity, and "crass" pursuits like professional sports are "extensions of basic behaviour patterns that did arise due to selection pressures".

Oh well, I imagine I've pissed you off again. As I said, it's mistake for me to respond to you.

At least you're now aware of how your behaviour can be construed as abrasive.

I'm aware that you have repeatedly become pissed off when your claims were criticized.

As for tautology, all of our behavior is in some sense an "extension" of "basic behaviour patterns that did arise due to selection pressures" --- for instance, language and folk psychology (the formation of mental models, what autistics have trouble with) arose due to selection pressures, and moral judgments are extensions of those behavior patterns, but that tells us nothing interesting about moral judgments. To make the statement less tautologous requires making it less vague, but that makes it more likely to be wrong.

You require people to back up their claims.

Yet, you expect people to accept your evaluation of something as "absurd" without question.

No, I require people not to say they've argued something when they've merely asserted it.

No, I only expect people who aren't idiots to recognize absurdities and for honest people to admit that the absurd is absurd.

And why do you not require this of yourself?

The cargo cult mimic machine plays on.

If it weren't a mere machine, one might think it was pissed off; that could explain the way it flails about.

If it weren't a mere machine, one might think it was pissed off; that could explain the way it flails about.

Hi guys. Watching you guys banter back-and-forth is not very interesting. Please bring this to an end - if the audience in general has nothing new to say I can close this thread to comments and we can move on to other stuff.

Kind of like Kansas Citizens for Science, which has basically become a home of atheist rants against religion, dressed up with a little science.

Ulyanov said:

"Kind of like Kansas Citizens for Science, which has basically become a home of atheist rants against religion, dressed up with a little science."

You gonna give some evidence of this, this time, or just whine again?

And why do you seem familiar...

Fighting off creationists does not make one an atheist. Rational Christians do it too.

I don't understand the anti-atheist rhetoric. Do people realize how few and far between atheists are? They're something on the order of 1% of the population, so do people really expect that they have enough political clout to "discriminate" against anybody?

I don't understand the anti-atheist rhetoric. Do people realize how few and far between atheists are? They're something on the order of 1% of the population, so do people really expect that they have enough political clout to "discriminate" against anybody?

That's just the Pharisees wailing and beating their breasts in public.

Evidence Darth?

If you really wanted any, you would look at their forums. The funniest are by the board member who calls himself "76", as if we don't know who he is.

And I sound familiar?

Too bad, so sad, you paranoid schmuck.

And as to the poster who said that the atheists are only 1 percent of the population, and implying they are irrelevant, I agree.

I am just sick of the smears and lies they spread.

I mean, look at the crap Richard Dawkins passess off as "science".

He actually going to be in Kansas pumping his book, The God Delusion.

(I wonder if that is a peer reviewed publication.)

I mean, look at the crap Richard Dawkins passess off as "science".

Do people realize how few and far between atheists are? They're something on the order of 1% of the population, ...

I believe the 11% figure from atheism.about.com, but that includes agnostics. Probably it's all the same to the Pharisees, but I venture to guess that the 11% is mostly agnostics. The state-by-state breakdowns are I think a little misleading, since the word they use is "non-religious".

And that's the US only; I would expect worldwide figures to be lower, though I have no evidence.

I don't understand the anti-atheist rhetoric. Do people realize how few and far between atheists are? They're something on the order of 1% of the population, so do people really expect that they have enough political clout to "discriminate" against anybody?

— GuyeFaux

Evidence Darth?

If you really wanted any, you would look at their forums.

THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

And it's not evidence. It's being lazy. It's being sloppy. It's trying to pass off insults as valid arguments.

You make an accusation--back it up. And you're NOT backing it up. If you want to play on the science playground, you better follow the rules if you want to be taken seriously.

By the way, Pharisee...

I mean, look at the crap Richard Dawkins passess off as "science".

I think a lot of us have.

It's obvious that YOU haven't. You're not specific, you can't point to relevant passages, you just wave your arm in his general direction and spew another insult.

Stop being so lazy and do some work (it would help if you'd stop beating your breast in public so much).

The Wikipedia article Religion in the United Statescombines atheists, agnostics, and "no religion" to get a figure of 15% in 2001, which surprises me.

And as to the poster who said that the atheists are only 1 percent of the population, and implying they are irrelevant, I agree. I am just sick of the smears and lies they spread.