J. Scott Turner Misses the Mark

OK, I went to his web site, read the article and one other that he wrote about design. I think that perhaps you are being a little harsh here in proclaiming it "dumb." Yes, he gets it wrong about scientists running to the courts -- that shows that he knows little about the political aspect of ID. However, I think what he is trying to say is that academia should always embrace ideas. His other publication on biological design approaches it as a philosophical problem concerning how complexity arises in natural systems, and explicitly rejects ID. He opens with a commentary on how the use of the word "design" itself is difficult to deal with when considering the fit between form and function in biological systems. As an academic, I can't disagree with his sentiments at all (not to say I agree with his arguments -- that takes a more careful reading).

What strikes me here is that Turner seems not to be "dumb" but rather very naive about the politics of ID. My own personal stance that I openly take with students is that I am more than willing to discuss creationism and ID on their scientific merits at any time (I was harassed last Spring in a course in exactly the manner he describes, by the way). However, this academic approach is distinctly separate from the political problem wherein ID is a construct intelligently designed as a sociopolitical tool to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. It is very easy for a busy academic used to a collegial atmosphere of intellectual openness to missunderstand agar plate of sleaze that continues to nourish the ID movement in this country.

My own personal stance that I openly take with students is that I am more than willing to discuss creationism and ID on their scientific merits at any time

Sigh. Turner positions ID as a scientific hypothesis, to be evaluated on its scientific merits. Unfortunately, Turner's position is simply without any merit. ID is creationism re-worded (except during fund-raising) into scientistical gibberish in the hopes of sneaking creationist preaching into public school science classes. That's what ID was *designed* to do, that's all it's for, and the only valid arenas for fighting it are political, legal and religious.

Turner would be well advised to spend a few moments trying to put his case before those forums constructed explicitly to "discuss" ID. He'd only get those few moments before he was banned, which might perhaps bring home to him the "collegial atmosphere of intellectual openness" the ID proponents favor when they get to make the rules. Who knows, after few such experiences he might even understand his subject matter!

Needless to say, anytime that ID (or any creation science claim) is placed openly on the table for scientific discussion it quickly collapses into a steaming heap of crap. I have yet to see anything in ID or traditional creationism smelling of "scientific merit" when examined closely. Nevertheless, the lack of scientific merit can be asserted because the claims HAVE been examined scientifically (or at least been subjected to close scrutiny as in the case of quote mining and similar such things) and either refuted or shown to be meaningless.

I think that it is an important strategy to NOT simply dismiss all creationist and ID claims as "unscientific" without backing your stance. To do so is to effectively "prove" the assertions of the creationists that scientists are arrogant and simply dismiss their claims through bias and prejudice. Rather, as done so effectively in the talk origins archive and here, one needs to actually answer the claims. Remember that most students are not a bunch of DI hacks who should know better after having their arses kicked so many times. They have been told that we are liars and cheats, that there is no evidence for evolution (and lots against), and that we dismiss ID because we are all atheist humanists.

It is worth pointing out that though ID can be easily dismissed as unscientific, every time a scientific paper comes out that directly addresses ID claims about irreducible complexity, the origins of complex mutually dependent systems, or the origins of new information (all hypotheses posited by the ID crowd), the paper is gleefully thrown in the faces of the DI crowd. This suggests that the more scientifically we can address specific DI claims (apart from "God did it" and other such BS), the stronger the case against DI.

I wonder if you would get more serious commentary from the ID side, if the posts and comments weren't so dismissive.

Just opened for business is http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com. It is a major goal of mine to make this blog a safe place for all sides to debate without anyone feeling that their opinion is somehow not as smart as someone elses.

It is possible to be very smart and have very clever ideas and still be dead wrong. Likewise, some of the greatest truths I've ever heard have come from 5 year-olds.

I am a bit perplexed by Turner's approach. he is not an ID proponant at all. I think he is just using a sort of "taunting" approach, possibly because that is the kind of stuff the Chronicle likes to publish, and he's trying (justifiably) to get his new book some press.

His book looks very interseting.

I think that's spot on. On one level, ID _is_ just another idea - and it's fun and important to play with ideas without any of the barnacles that real life attaches to their hulls. What if all the taboo opinions -- especially those held by your sworn enemies -- were right? Well worth trying to think that way: at the least you get some insight into the other side, and at the best you realise you were wrong all along.

At another level, ID is a poisonous nonsense that threatens the entire modern world, including computers, light bulbs and dentistry. But you can't expect a philosopher to make that leap.

a major goal of mine to make this blog a safe place for all sides to debate without anyone feeling that their opinion is somehow not as smart as someone elses.

— Randy Kirk

Uh, isn't this guy a college instructor?

Do we really have a problem with the ID claims being raised at the college level, in a class where the instructor supposedly knows a good deal more about evolutionary biology than the high-school coach teaching general science, and where the students will have presumably been provided some grounding in the scientific method, logic, and the weighing of evidence?

Where the curriculum for any given course in a degree-directed program will be following the well-accepted science, even in undergraduate courses, and will certainly be following the cutting-edge science in graduate courses?

Where the curriculum is determined by Ph.D's and accreditation bodies?

Our concerns with psuedoscience mandates in publicly-funded secondary and primary schools are legitimate ones of constitutional stature.

At the college level--in any half-ass college, as opposed to jokes and frauds, like BJU--where the students are paying customers and not compulsory attendees, our concerns need to be phrased rather differently.

I think that it is an important strategy to NOT simply dismiss all creationist and ID claims as "unscientific" without backing your stance. To do so is to effectively "prove" the assertions of the creationists that scientists are arrogant and simply dismiss their claims through bias and prejudice. Rather, as done so effectively in the talk origins archive and here, one needs to actually answer the claims.

NJ

It isn't the question of truth or wisdom that I'm discussing here. The issue is reasoned discourse without ad hominem statements or other techniques that don't go to the issue. Calling a person or an idea dumb doesn't do a thing to advance the discussion, it merely creates a negative environment.

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas. We find that a truly outside-the- lines idea commonly leads to something remarkable. We also know that some folks who are more likely to be good at upside down thinking quickly shut up if they feel that they or their ideas have been marginalized.

In addition, such approaches to debate suggest that the speaker is lacking humility, not open minded, and given to looking down his nose at those he doesn't agree with. These are all the kinds of things that may eventually result in "hate" of the opposed group. In turn, those who, as a group, think this way may begin to advance stereotypes and act prejudicial towards the suspected "ignorant" group. (Failing to hire, promote, or otherwise reward those on faculties who think wrong, for instance.)

Re "makes the claim that life (or some aspects of life) defy credulity as natural phenomena, which means goddidit."

One thing I don't get is why they (Creationists and/or IDers) think God would be somehow prohibited from being responsible for stuff that we do understand.

Henry

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas. We find that a truly outside-the- lines idea commonly leads to something remarkable. We also know that some folks who are more likely to be good at upside down thinking quickly shut up if they feel that they or their ideas have been marginalized.

You DO realize that there's a difference between brainstorming and a scientific research program, right?

gwangung,

Not necessarily. The beginning of any new theory necessarily starts out exactly the same way. Currently we have some folks proposing memes, selfish genes, and random large numbers. All of these could be dismissed as nonsense or added to a pool of possibilities.

To the extent that ID or even God are dismissed as relevant to the discussion, you leave out useful and plausible potential answers.

Fitting right into this question is the comment by Henry. No, I don't think any ID'r or Christian scientist would automatically assume that because we have evidence of a naturalistic method for arriving at how things appear to work, that it leaves out God or some other intelligent designer still having his finger on the controls (think alien or we are under the microscope of some very large creatures.)

Just opened for business is http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com.

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas.

We find that a truly outside-the- lines idea commonly leads to something remarkable. We also know that some folks who are more likely to be good at upside down thinking quickly shut up if they feel that they or their ideas have been marginalized.

Not necessarily.

The beginning of any new theory necessarily starts out exactly the same way.

Currently we have some folks proposing memes, selfish genes, and random large numbers. All of these could be dismissed as nonsense or added to a pool of possibilities.

Also amusing is the spectacle of independent-minded scientists' running to college administrators ... for help in defining what is science and what is permissible discourse in their classroom.

"To the extent that ID or even God are dismissed as relevant to the discussion, you leave out useful and plausible potential answers."

Mr. Kirk, even to a layman like me, it's clear that ID is neither "useful" nor "plausible" as a viable alternative to the Theory of Evolution (ToE). At best it is an interesting philosophical concept.

If its proponents would engage in actual research, and encourage open debate and review of their ideas, then I would be inclined to give them the benefit of doubt. But they don't.

They quote out of context to support their position. They boast of conducting research and then refuse to even describe its nature. They lie in court under oath. They demand defenders of ToE provide "enough" evidence to satisfy them, but when asked to do likewise assert that ID "doesn't have to match your pathetic level of detail".

Admittedly an idea is more than its proponents. But with "help" like that, ID faces an uphill struggle and then some.

To the extent that ID or even God are dismissed as relevant to the discussion, you leave out useful and plausible potential answers.

Randy, I hate to say this, but your site will NOT attract those of us with a scientific bent. You see, for us, reality matters. ID/Creationism are not reality, so we just don't care. Asking us to patiently explain just how wrong-headed people's ideas are, over and over and over and over and over again, without at least having the pleasure, from time to time, in a bit of public humiliation for the peddlars of misinformation is really just a little bit too much to ask. Particularly when the other side is willing to lie...

Anyway, I wanted to make you stop and think just a little about your brainstorming analogy. One could imagine that a brainstorming session was held (over the centuries) for possible explanations of the diversity of life. We've had Darwinism, Lamarkism, Intelligent Design, Goddidit, and any number of religious first cause myths from around the world. All were put on the table.

Now, the brainstorming session is finished (actually, it's not, science is always open to new ideas, but so far those are what we have come up with). Let me ask you, what happens with the ideas at your company after the brainstorming? If you do brainstorming like every other company I've ever worked at/heard about/read about, the next phase is to reject the unworkable ideas "No, that won't fly, it's too expensive", "This one's no good, we'd need an office in Madrid, and couldn't get the paperwork done before the deadline", "No, that product will result in a battery life of 3 seconds", "No, although pretty, the bridge will fall done the first time a semi-trailer drives across it".

In the whole Evolution Vs Crank Ideas debate, we've already done this stage, and all the other ideas have been tossed out (with the possible exception of Lamarkism, which is having a little bit of a revival in a modified form). They just don't work when put face-to-face with reality. Perhaps this is a little sad, as it reduces the amount of magic in the world, but hey, that's not our fault, blame the universe (or God, or the FSM or [insert diety/first cause of choice here]).

Flint:

I agree that ID as an overarching concept is indeed untestable, but ID folks do make some specific (and important) claims that are testable. For example, Behe is now famous for having made several falsified assertions about the number of essential proteins comprising the bacterial flagellum (well, "a" bacterial flagellum), the absence of functional homologues in other systems, and so on. Likewise, Dembski's fundamental (largely unstated) assertions about protein function that form the foundation of his calculations are almost trivially falsifiable. And so on. This is why they have to both ignore so much material and constantly move their goalposts where the weight of facts becomes so great that even they can no longer seriously deny them.

Uh, isn't this guy a college instructor? Do we really have a problem with the ID claims being raised at the college level, in a class where the instructor supposedly knows a good deal more about evolutionary biology than the high-school coach teaching general science, and where the students will have presumably been provided some grounding in the scientific method, logic, and the weighing of evidence? ...

Not necessarily. The beginning of any new theory necessarily starts out exactly the same way. Currently we have some folks proposing memes, selfish genes, and random large numbers. All of these could be dismissed as nonsense or added to a pool of possibilities.

To the extent that ID or even God are dismissed as relevant to the discussion, you leave out useful and plausible potential answers.

Um, no.

I think it's clear that you DON'T understand what scientific research is all about, and you DON'T understand how scientific research begins or how it gets a foothold in science.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. But ideas don't make up science. It's ideas backed up by evidence that makes science. And excluding ideas without evidence is PRECISELY what science is all about.

What you're doing here is trying to elbow out a place for intelligent design without doing the hard work of finding evidence that would support its ideas. Come back when there's evidence (factual findings, phenomena that is better explained by ID, things other than negative argumentation) and THEN we can talk about ID as an answer.

You're making the all-too-common mistake of confusing rhetoric with scientific research.

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas.

— Randy Kirk

Turner's article in the Chronicle is clearly not an endorsement of ID. I believe he's being deliberately provocative ---using the ID argument to show how scientifically minded individuals can injure their own cause by closing off a particular debate in the interest of science. One can easily imagine the circumstances that brought Turner, a renowned biologist whose scientific inquiry centers on the issue of design, to write this article. One doesn't have to look further than this blog to imagine how his carefully thought out ideas have been greeted with scientific hysteria and scorn because he dares to mention, oh science save us, design.

Also amusing is the spectacle of independent-minded scientists' running to college administrators or the courts for help in defining what is science and what is permissible discourse in their classroom.

Faced with all that hue and cry, I almost want to say: "Friends, intelligent design is just an idea."

The strain's very persistence invites the obvious question: If Darwin settled the issue once and for all, why does it keep coming back?

Perhaps the fault lies with Darwin's supporters.

Rather than debate the strain on its merits, we scramble to the courts or the political ramparts to expel it from our classrooms and our students' minds.

Not necessarily. The beginning of any new theory necessarily starts out exactly the same way. Currently we have some folks proposing memes, selfish genes, and random large numbers. All of these could be dismissed as nonsense or added to a pool of possibilities.

To the extent that ID or even God are dismissed as relevant to the discussion, you leave out useful and plausible potential answers.

Ivy, your points are appreciated.

Indeed, I have been, to some extent, a critic of MacNeill's overly-accomodating civility toward ID.

My perhaps inadequately-articulated point was not that we should turn a blind eye to all college-level considerations of ID, but that a different critical context is required than in our more-typical "ID in the (high school) classroom" discussion: simply ruling ID "out of bounds" will not work at the college level.

I agree with Shallit and with many of the commentators here that Turner made some needlessly obtuse and naive remarks and should be sent back to class himself for a little seasoning.

Randy Kirk wrote:

I wonder if you would get more serious commentary from the ID side, if the posts and comments weren't so dismissive.

Their performance at the Dover trial strongly implies an answer of "no." They had their chance to put forth their best arguments and evidence in a debate whose moderator was, if anything, biased toward their side; and they lost, fair and square. Since then, they've become completely unhinged in their attempts to discredit the ruling.

(Besides, one of their most basic and longstanding arguments against evolution is that it leads to atheism and evil -- which pretty clearly implies that the dispute is not scientific, it's political and religious.)

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas. We find that a truly outside-the- lines idea commonly leads to something remarkable. We also know that some folks who are more likely to be good at upside down thinking quickly shut up if they feel that they or their ideas have been marginalized.

You are speaking of a situation where all participants are working toward the same clearly-understood and honestly-articulated goal: find ideas that benefit the company. In the evolution-creationism debate, the goals are clearly different, and the creationists blatantly misrepresent their goals as routinely as they fart.

In addition, such approaches to debate suggest that the speaker is lacking humility, not open minded, and given to looking down his nose at those he doesn't agree with. These are all the kinds of things that may eventually result in "hate" of the opposed group.

This is how the creationists hide from honest debate: make idiotic statements, have their stupidity shoved in their faces, get embarrassed and pissed off as a result, then pretend they're being "persecuted," circle the wagons, and henceforth treat their critics as enemies to be fought off, not scientists who interpret the facts differently. The creationists use this phony victim mentality as their standard excuse for their lack of actual scientific work in support of ID.

Note that phrase in italics: actual scientific work. It's what separates real science from the phonies, including "cdesign proponentsists." All their efforts are devoted to PR and political activism, none to actual science.

Oh, and...

When we do brainstorming at our company, we assess a $1 fine to anyone who is dismissive of even the seemingly most inane ideas.

Would a participant be fined for pointing out that a certain idea had already been tried and had failed?

We find that a truly outside-the- lines idea commonly leads to something remarkable.

HOW do you find this? By testing which ideas work and which don't?

What's the fine for repeatedly flogging an idea that has already been offered, discussed, and conclusively debunked? The creationists have been doing this since Darwin was alive.

Do degrees in psych and law from UCLA count.

It may seem tiresome to explain your position over and over, but it is only a sign of immaturity to show anger and rage. Please don't use similar anger and rage when you have to tell your kids over and over.

When someone in a brainstorming session at our company says that idea has been tried before, they are fined double. Resurrected ideas are some of the best we ever use.

We are a manufacturer of plastic products and understand the difference between engineering and science. We are by far the best in the world at what we do, because we understand engineering.

Every argument made could have been done as well or improved upon without talking down, using sarcasm, or intimating superiority of thinking or education.

Would it be so far fetched to think that there are some in the sciences who have lied, shaded evidence, etc., in order to get a paper published or a grant approved. Naaaa. I guess not.

For those who have no interest in the debate at godvsnogod.blogspot.com, it is not my problem. There are plenty of folks who have engaged me at wired on line and other venues in the past.

My agenda is clearly stated in the masthead of the blog. There are no hidden ones.

Randy: I have reread the responses to your post here, and not all of them show "anger and rage." So instead of complaining about the "anger and rage," why not simply ignore the posts that show those traits and address the ones that don't? I, for one, have responded to your introduction with a few points I consider relevant, and (in my own admittedly biased opinion), I don't think my points were immature or angry. I'm certainly not the only adult to think these thoughts.

So...are you willing to address my statements, at elast?

Would it be so far fetched to think that there are some in the sciences who have lied, shaded evidence, etc., in order to get a paper published or a grant approved. Naaaa. I guess not.

Of course there are. They get nailed in peer review, right along with pseudosciences of all stripes, and that's the end of the scam. Your point...?

It may seem tiresome to explain your position over and over, but it is only a sign of immaturity to show anger and rage. Please don't use similar anger and rage when you have to tell your kids over and over.

And I believe it is also a sign of immaturity and rage to repeat the same thing over and over again while ignoring what other people have brought up.

Do us the courtesy of listening to what we're saying, instead of ignoring us.

Now, Mr. Kirk...do you understand the difference between scientific research and "brainstorming"? More importantly, do you understand WHY "resurrected" ideas work?

There are normally two stages associated with brain-storming sessions: producing the ideas followed by evaluating them. In the first stage, no idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems, should be rejected or criticized. In the second stage the ideas are winnowed down in the hope that some will prove to be useful.

Randy Kirk is apparently confusing the two stages. At least, I assume that his company does not put into practice all ideas, no matter how crazy. Most scientists are willing to hear and assess apparently crazy ideas. The trouble is, ID has not had an essentially new idea in the past 50 years (can anyone contradict me here - specified complexity is just a reworking of an old idea) and all have been evaluated many times by many biologists and always found wanting.

Why do so many people who are pro ID or claim to be undecided assume that an idea that is new to them has never before been considered by the scientific community?

There are normally two stages associated with brain-storming sessions: producing the ideas followed by evaluating them. In the first stage, no idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems, should be rejected or criticized. In the second stage the ideas are winnowed down in the hope that some will prove to be useful. Randy Kirk is apparently confusing the two stages.

Or smooshing them together. Except that you really have to separate the two to be effective.

Mr. Kirk apparently thinks that the bulk of the scientific work is in the idea-generating phase. It's not. The bulk of the work is in generating research programs to test that idea. And he's basically trying to leapfrog the testing and improvement stage and jumping into sales and marketing (without even getting into development or production).

I really wish I had the time to respond to every good idea responsive to my comments (and there are several.) But I arrived at this post by chance, and truly just wanted to address the issue of the tone of the argument. I have tried to stay true to that in my follow ups, but we do all have a tendency to hit the old rabbit trails.

Of course, we have multiple stages in the brainstorming to product on the shelf process. As someone who has done original research, the process isn't that different. I don't pretend to have dealt with the kinds of research most of you do at the levels you do. And I don't have the depth of knowledge or understanding that you do with respect to your specific fields of interest.

But I probably have a wider range of education and expertise than most of you. It doesn't make me smarter, wiser, or more correct, but it does provide a different perspective. Some scientists (not all) become immersed in a bubble, and do not have contact with other points of view or source materials in other disciplines. No one can do it all.

The wisdom that some of the folks who have chosen to believe GODDIDIT might come from a different set of understandings than you have.

In my lifetime I was raised to be a scientist, and intended to go that direction, but I was a believer until grad school. Then I switched to agnostic for a while. Later, I found that the underpinnings of my belief in Darwin's theories had been badly damaged or destroyed.

I returned 100% to the Bible is true and is the word of God.

So I've walked where you walk and understand your perspective (to some degree, though far from perfectly.) And I have walked with those who are sold out believers.

I desire that science continues its march to more and better understanding of how things work. And I desire that all of us continue to contemplate and potentially appreciate that it probably didn't just happen. For those who do, I don't think you stupid, dumb, or lacking in wisdom. Just don't think you have opened your mind fully to the possibility.

It may seem tiresome to explain your position over and over, but it is only a sign of immaturity to show anger and rage.

But I probably have a wider range of education and expertise than most of you.

I think you assume FAR too much. Mayhap you are being far too prideful in yourself?

And I note that you're still ignoring substantive points people have brought up, particularly on points that you yourself have said you are not experienced in.

I think you should consider what kind of witness you're being for God....

Randy: if you admit the following...

I don't pretend to have dealt with the kinds of research most of you do at the levels you do. And I don't have the depth of knowledge or understanding that you do with respect to your specific fields of interest.

...then how can you have any basis to conclude...

But I probably have a wider range of education and expertise than most of you. ??

Did someone say "lacking in humility?"

And you still haven't answered my questions about the dishonest tactics of many IDers, or their lack of actual scientific output supporting ID. As a certain old lady said in a certain fast-food ad, "Where's the beef?!"

Answer those questions, and you'll see very quickly why we treat so many IDers with such a disdainful tone. They're practicing phony science, bearing false witness against people who have done no wrong, and distorting their own religion, for...what purpose exactly?

I certainly didn't intend to sound superior, just different. It was to the point of how a breadth of background, and having walked a few different paths creates a difference. I don't now wish to sound defensive, but I believe that my other comments would clarify what I acknowledge are areas that I'm not qualified to speak to.

I'm not qualified to discuss every single proponent of ID and whether they are being honest or not. I have debated with some on blogcritics.com who seem to be quite agnostic, but who have a very hard time ignoring the evidence of design, and are not able to accept the idea that given enough shots, and rules created by ?, that we have arrived where we are, and that the current universe sustains life here for millions of years without help.

I will say that there are some ID folks who want to distance themselves from "God" in the arguing of the ID subject. In some cases this may in fact be dishonest. In other cases I can see where it would be a way to keep the "thread" pure.

In a purely philosophical way, the question of design does not require God. It only requires an intelligence that we haven't discovered. This could be compared to the undiscovered issues re: gravity or life from non-life, or who created the matter and energy and rule that made up the pre-big bang.

I will look back and see if there are issues which have been raised about my arguments that I have ignored, and try to answer them over the next days.

Let's see how Randy Kirk's tryout as an IDer went:

Pretend you know more than you do: check.

Make grand pronouncements and refuse to deal with the objections raised to them: check

Pretend the questions you are asking and points you are raising are new: check

Confuse ad hominem with reasoned rejection and namecalling: check.

Congrats guy, you'll fit right in.

But I probably have a wider range of education and expertise than most of you.

Randy: I have a request for you -- read the following article and tell us how you, as a Christian, feel about the actions described:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01/plaintiff_intimidation_in_chur.php

I, for one, will be watching the comments both here and there, so as far as I'm concerned, you can respond wherever you wish. Heck, you might want to make a post of it on your own blog.

I really wish I had the time to respond to every good idea responsive to my comments (and there are several.) But I arrived at this post by chance, and truly just wanted to address the issue of the tone of the argument. I have tried to stay true to that in my follow ups, but we do all have a tendency to hit the old rabbit trails.

... And I don't have the depth of knowledge or understanding that you do with respect to your specific fields of interest.

But I probably have a wider range of education and expertise than most of you.

It doesn't make me smarter, wiser, or more correct, but it does provide a different perspective.

Some scientists (not all) become immersed in a bubble, and do not have contact with other points of view or source materials in other disciplines....

The wisdom that some of the folks who have chosen to believe GODDIDIT might come from a different set of understandings than you have.

... Later, I found that the underpinnings of my belief in Darwin's theories had been badly damaged or destroyed.

I returned 100% to the Bible is true and is the word of God.

So I've walked where you walk and understand your perspective (to some degree, though far from perfectly.)

And I have walked with those who are sold out believers.

And I desire that all of us continue to contemplate and potentially appreciate that it probably didn't just happen.

For those who do, I don't think you stupid, dumb, or lacking in wisdom. Just don't think you have opened your mind fully to the possibility.

RE - relevant background. I wouldn't disagree except to the extent that we might not agree on what is relevant. My background and published writing, radio and television appearances regarding teen sexuality might not have a direct relevance to our discussion. My background in music or published works on how to run a bicycle retail store might not either. However, these varied disciplines provide a backdrop that is different than the average individual who may have a much deeper but narrower range of interests. Not better or worse - just different.

re: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01/plain...

I have nothing good to say for individuals who act that way. I don't think it is how folks who really know and trust Christ act. They give a wrong impression of what it is to be Christian.

Glen - Regarding: self righteousness. My definition may be different. I take stands, but leave room for your position. That doesn't seem to fit the definition. You, on the other hand . . .

With deep personal regret, I'm going to leave the stuff about teen sexuality and bicycles to someone else...

My background and published writing, radio and television appearances regarding teen sexuality might not have a direct relevance to our discussion. My background in music or published works on how to run a bicycle retail store might not either.

Indeed they might not. In fact, I infer from what you've said so far that they don't.

Furthermore, given all the dangerous, dishonest drivel I've heard about sex from people who call themselves Christian (much of it falling under that category of "false witness"), I'd be inclined to ask how qualified a bicycle salesman is even to talk about teen sexuality. But that's for another thread...

Glen - Regarding: self righteousness. My definition may be different. I take stands, but leave room for your position. That doesn't seem to fit the definition. You, on the other hand ...

RE - relevant background. I wouldn't disagree except to the extent that we might not agree on what is relevant. My background and published writing, radio and television appearances regarding teen sexuality might not have a direct relevance to our discussion.

My background in music or published works on how to run a bicycle retail store might not either. However, these varied disciplines provide a backdrop that is different than the average individual who may have a much deeper but narrower range of interests. Not better or worse - just different.

Prideful, prideful, prideful, Mr. Kirk.

Sigh.

I suppose my evolutionary track has caused me to survive and create offspring because those before me believed in God. This must have been a benefit. There is statistical evidence that believers in the US, at least, are having more children than non-believers. There must be some kind of instinct going on that provides a benefit to folks who think GODDIDIT.

So, as abstract thinkers, we have generally come to the conclusion that there is a spiritual realm, we have weighed the evidence, and concluded GODDIDIT. Then it works to our advantage for survival.

This all assumes that evolution is correct regarding selection.

I suspect there is superior survival for those who can carry on a discourse without sarcasm and name calling.

In fact, so far there is none of that at http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com

When someone in a brainstorming session at our company says that idea has been tried before, they are fined double.

There is statistical evidence that believers in the US, at least, are having more children than non-believers. There must be some kind of instinct going on that provides a benefit to folks who think GODDIDIT.

I suspect there is superior survival for those who can carry on a discourse without sarcasm and name calling.

In fact, so far there is none of that at ...

I suppose my evolutionary track has caused me to survive and create offspring because those before me believed in God. This must have been a benefit.

There is statistical evidence that believers in the US, at least, are having more children than non-believers. There must be some kind of instinct going on that provides a benefit to folks who think GODDIDIT.

So, as abstract thinkers,

we have generally come to the conclusion that there is a spiritual realm, we have weighed the evidence, and concluded GODDIDIT. Then it works to our advantage for survival.

This all assumes that evolution is correct regarding selection.

I suspect there is superior survival for those who can carry on a discourse without sarcasm and name calling.

In fact, so far there is none of that at [...]

There is statistical evidence that believers in the US, at least, are having more children than non-believers. There must be some kind of instinct going on that provides a benefit to folks who think GODDIDIT.

So, as abstract thinkers, we have generally come to the conclusion that there is a spiritual realm, we have weighed the evidence, and concluded GODDIDIT. Then it works to our advantage for survival.

So what if it turns out that Muslims are making more babies per thousand than your fellow believers? Would you take that as proof that their beliefs are superior to yours? Would you convert?

Your connection between higher birthrates and beliefs are a complete non-sequitur, but that's another matter.

Raging Bee

Show me a Muslim group that is thriving and I might consider changing.

However, the point of this argument (survival rates of believers in god) may be true even for those who have an understanding that there is more to this universe than them, and they are anxious to learn and serve that potter.

Moreover, much of what is taught in other religions is quite useful for survival and spreading around genetic material.

Show me a Muslim group that is thriving and I might consider changing.

Not very loyal to your God, are you? There are plenty of groups and sub-groups of Muslims that are thriving, both in and out of what we call the "Muslim world." I'm pretty firmly loyal to my Gods, so I'm not interested in converting, but you might want to give them a look.

Moreover, much of what is taught in other religions is quite useful for survival and spreading around genetic material.

Is this the beginning of an admission that other religions might have a validity comparable to that of Christianity? There may be hope for you yet. Merry meet, merry part, and merry meet again!

I just want to reiterate that I'm fairly sure that Turner is not an ID creationist. A careful read of his commentary shows this. A look at his books also shows this, I think. Is there any evidence to the contrary other than a) his use of the word "design" and b) his own seeming ambiguity (which I do think is problematic) in writing about this issue in this manner?

Please consider that people are doing exactly what he is accusing people of doing: Painting reasonable scientists as creationists than descending on them like ferrets after a dying porcupine.

Yes, we should go after the ID creationists and all the other creationists, vigorously. But Turner is not one, as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Greg,

Exactly what do you mean by "go after" creationists?

What if I were to post that we should "go after" atheists or naturalists or unbelievers?

This is the end result of the kind of discourse I see in some of the posts and comment. The attitude comes from a base of anger or something.

We have people saying the debate is over and that weathermen who don't agree with global warming should be stripped of credentials.

I don't think any of us should be going after any of the rest of us. The debate can be fun, useful, and move the issue forward. Otherwise, we show ourselves to be either immature or just plain uncivilized.

In answer to some of Randy's questions:

Exactly what do you mean by "go after" creationists?

Identify and attack their falsehoods, and oppose their attempts to inflict their (minority) interpretation of Christian doctrine on other people's children in the guise of "science" -- or any other guise.

What if I were to post that we should "go after" atheists or naturalists or unbelievers?

It would be nothing new to us. People in your camp, and the politicians and preachers you support, have been spreading lies about people like us -- people who dare to question this or that established or majority creed du jour -- for centuries.

This is the end result of the kind of discourse I see in some of the posts and comment. The attitude comes from a base of anger or something.

"Or something?" You don't sound very eager to learn the specifics here.

In fact, we have tried to explain, on this blog and elsewhere, exactly why we're angry; and people like you keep on pretending you can't see our reasons, and asking the same question over and over, and ignoring or forgetting the answers.

Remember that article I cited in post #155694 above? You yourself agreed that the behavior described was wrong. Do you not consider this good cause for anger on our part? Aren't YOU angry about it? Incidents of this sort have been happening long before this country was even founded, and many people like us have suffered and died as a result.

We have people saying the debate is over and that weathermen who don't agree with global warming should be stripped of credentials.

We also have political appointees (Republican) with absolutely no science background or credentials of their own, "editing," rewriting and erasing the words of respected scientists to fit a pro-business, pro-fundamentalist political agenda (i.e., in NASA).

Any more questions?

I don't think any of us should be going after any of the rest of us. The debate can be fun, useful, and move the issue forward. Otherwise, we show ourselves to be either immature or just plain uncivilized.

Well, at least poster 'Randy Kirk' provides an amusing diversion...

into vanity, etc.

Randy Kirk bloviated: However, the point of this argument (survival rates of believers in god) may be true even for those who have an understanding that there is more to this universe than them, and they are anxious to learn and serve that potter.

I just want to reiterate that I'm fairly sure that Turner is not an ID creationist. A careful read of his commentary shows this. A look at his books also shows this, I think. Is there any evidence to the contrary other than a) his use of the word "design" and b) his own seeming ambiguity (which I do think is problematic) in writing about this issue in this manner? Please consider that people are doing exactly what he is accusing people of doing: Painting reasonable scientists as creationists than descending on them like ferrets after a dying porcupine.

The basic problem you have Sr. Kirk, is that you think you can find more truth merely thinking about issues than you can doing science. That war was fought and won long ago, and science won...by a long shot.

Mark,

Once again, I don't suggest that I am more knowledgeable than you in your specific area of expertise. However, I would be surprised if those of you who are biologists are just as knowledgeable in physics or math or astrophysics. But that doesn't stop you from going outside you specific discipline to comment on these.

I am pretty certain that none of you are experts on comparitive religion or theology, but that won't keep you from offering an opinion that science is superior in its wisdom than Christianity.

And, quite frankly, most of the things that we have discussed since my first comment, have had less to do with the details of biology,etc., than they do with philosophy. And I do have a serious amount of education in that sphere.

Raging Bee,

So if those are the reasons your angry, then why would you want to contribute to an increase in negative discourse by responding in kind. There are plenty of folks on both sides of this or any issue who don't play nice.
Millions of Christians and Jews are dying in 2007 just because of their beliefs.

So, this takes us back to my original reason for commenting. Put aside the anger. Attack the issues, make your case, intend to prevail.

Then, if you ever do prevail, be prepared to handle the responsibility of leadership. The promise of naturalism and humanism has always been that we will create a better society when God is out, and science leads. Show me now.

The promise of naturalism and humanism has always been that we will create a better society when God is out, and science leads.

Randy Kirk said: I would be surprised if those of you who are biologists are just as knowledgeable in physics or math or astrophysics. But that doesn't stop you from going outside you [sic] specific discipline to comment on these.

I am pretty certain that none of you are experts on comparitive religion or theology, but that won't keep you from offering an opinion that science is superior in its wisdom than Christianity.

fnxtr

So you seek knowledge only for its own sake? There is no expectation that the results of the inquiry will improve anything?

RK:

You don't think a more useful explanation of the universe is an improvement?

You place no value on clear understanding?

Are you one of those new age flakes who would prefer existence to be shrouded in superstitious mystery? That things are real just because you want them to be?

If I was this rock -- sorry, crystal -- in the sea under a full moon and then rub it on my ankle it'll cure hemorrhoids? Bury a potato in the back yard and my warts will go away?

Is that the kind of "improvement" you're talking about?

And you competely avoided the part about liars and thugs.

was -> wash. mea culpa.

Regarding J. Scott Turner's opinion piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education: The original comment in this thread exposes the fact that those who take political positions consistently relinquish their objectivity in exchange for advocacy. Who here is not aware that politics and truth are seldom bed mates?

Turner's well-taken point is that scientists who quash the concept of intelligent design based on dogma or political advocacy rather than evidence corrupt the principals of both academic discourse and empiricism. I cannot see any credible Darwinist questioning that position...Some of the posts here seem to be written by people whose ancestors were likely proponents of the silencing of Galileo.

Scott Turner is a Darwinist, not a promoter of Intelligent Design. What he seeks to explore in his new book - The Tinkerer's Apprentice - is whether the "apparent" design in nature (which every thoughtful child over six can observe) might suggest that the neo-Darwinist position about evolution might not be all there is to it.

He isn't promoting a big white bearded man in the sky - but rather the possibility the systemic processes in body, specifically processes that involve homeostasis, might actually be in a dialog with genetic processes to produce the final result of a phenotype...at least in my humble understanding of his work.

My first suggestion to those who wish to promote political agendas is that they send money to the Union of Concerned Scientists as opposed to debasing credible researchers who are frankly beyond their pay grade, and in this case, promoting reason and discourse.

My second suggestion is that they read Turner's actual works...and try to understand his revolutionary and very well documented positions. This is a man who knows physiology, is an entertaining and capable communicator, and a very creative thinker.

In his brilliant first book - The Extended Organism - he built on the ideas in Dawkin's The Extended Phenotype, (though I am clear he came to similar ideas independently)and provided significant evidence that the boundaries of an organism's physiology can extend beyond its "skin". He provided many examples of this ground-breaking idea from a position as credible as any Darwinist out there.

Truth comes from a dialectic. I understand that both witch burners and religious ideologues need to be met on the field of battle. However, we don't want to flame our best in the process.

Take a deep breath, please.

I am pretty certain that none of you are experts on comparitive religion or theology, but that won't keep you from offering an opinion that science is superior in its wisdom than Christianity.

Scott Turner is a Darwinist, not a promoter of Intelligent Design. What he seeks to explore in his new book - The Tinkerer's Apprentice - is whether the "apparent" design in nature (which every thoughtful child over six can observe) might suggest that the neo-Darwinist position about evolution might not be all there is to it.

those who wish to promote political agendas

Truth comes from a dialectic.

fnxtr,

All of your writing suggests you have clear agenda in mind. Thus it is a bit hard to imagine that your research or analysis of research is not colored by the lens you see through.

My question was whether that lens includes using science to better mankind. It is possible that you have other uses for science. Power, personal wealth or success, etc. Everyone who argues with as much passion as you must also be passionate about the end game of their work.

THugs and liars. Plenty everywhere I turn. Lawyers, politicians, teachers union, college and university faculty committees, regigious leaders, scientists, etc. Some in each group.

RK:

My 'agenda' or lack thereof is irrelevant to the issue at hand (see the thread title), which is the scientific vacuity and moral bankruptcy of the "Inteligent Design" scam.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

Randall Kirk wrote:

Millions of Christians and Jews are dying in 2007 just because of their beliefs.

Millions? Dying where? Not here in Christendom, and most certainly not as a result of any policy advocated here. What are you on about? Do you think that mentioning the persecution of Christians somewhere else justifies persecution by Christians here? Sorry, it doesn't. Two wrongs don't make a right.

So, this takes us back to my original reason for commenting. Put aside the anger. Attack the issues, make your case, intend to prevail.

Um, that's what I've been doing in response to your posts. I specified SOME of the issues, and you had nothing to say about them. Do try to keep up, won't you?

Then, if you ever do prevail, be prepared to handle the responsibility of leadership.

Better than the vapid phony Christians who are currently trying to tell others how to raise our kids and live our lives? That's not exactly a high bar you're setting.

The promise of naturalism and humanism has always been that we will create a better society when God is out, and science leads.

No, the promise has always been that people are most free, and make the most progress on all fronts, when we're free to practice religion as we see fit, and no sect has a monopoly on state power. We don't have to show you anything -- just read a history book.

Randy Kirk: if your website includes "Why are monarch butterflies considered beautiful, while moths are not?" you are in desperate need of a copy of Joseph Scheer's 'Night Visions: The Secret Designs of Moths', which is a book containing astoundingly beautiful pictures of eastern North American moths done with a high resolution scanner.

All of your writing suggests you have clear agenda in mind. Thus it is a bit hard to imagine that your research or analysis of research is not colored by the lens you see through. My question was whether that lens includes using science to better mankind. It is possible that you have other uses for science. Power, personal wealth or success, etc. Everyone who argues with as much passion as you must also be passionate about the end game of their work. THugs and liars. Plenty everywhere I turn. Lawyers, politicians, teachers union, college and university faculty committees, regigious leaders, scientists, etc. Some in each group.

— Randy (I censor comments on my blog) Kirk

All of your writing suggests you have clear agenda in mind. Thus it is a bit hard to imagine that your research or analysis of research is not colored by the lens you see through. My question was whether that lens includes using science to better mankind. It is possible that you have other uses for science. Power, personal wealth or success, etc. Everyone who argues with as much passion as you must also be passionate about the end game of their work.

— Randy Kirk

RK's purpose is the old creationist/cdesign proponentist schtick of trying to get polite discourse going with the science supporters and then claim that their YECism (as is apparently RK's position) or IDism is being taken seriously as science. Fundamentally dishonest.

I wonder what attitude RK's company takes to an employee whose idea has been tried repeatedly and failed for decades but who goes out and takes out ads in the media promoting his idea and calling the company dogmatic, arrogant, dishonest and cult-like and claiming they are trying to ram their ideas down his throat? How about if he engages in a political campaign to get his idea imposed on the company or to require that the company use his idea just as much as any other ('equal time')?

Quick points

I'm sorry that the thread is not being maintained. I merely dropped by, felt that the tone was pretty out there, and decided to comment. No agenda, no plan, just a visceral response.

I have not, to date, even monitored my blogs, much less censored them. However, it is my intent to try and maintain civility.

I have removed offensive material from Christianclassics.blogspot.com

I'm not 100% sure I understand Mike's last question fully, but I desire open forums in all arenas. I do not believe that radio stations or Internet sites, or cable TV stations owe equal time to anyone.

Raging Bee:

I appreciate much of your thinking and your way of expressing things. But in this last post you use this huge broad brush with regard to Christians teaching folks how to raise kids. What better advice than unconditional love, forgiveness, establishing clear rules, teaching discipline, and promoting wisdom. These are the basic tenants of most who I follow, and I have a huge library of both Christian and secular authors on this subject.

Maybe you preferred Dr. Spock or Freud or that greatest of all non-agenda scientists Kinsey.

But in this last post you use this huge broad brush with regard to Christians teaching folks how to raise kids.

No, I did not use such a broad brush -- I referred specifically to "vapid phoney Christians" who were trying to use state power to enshrine certain narrowly held beliefs in public schools -- beliefs such as creationism and homophobia, which are not held by a majority of Christians, aren't even central to Christian doctrine, and have, in fact, caused rifts within the Christian community.

Raging Bee

Point taken.

What is the "Selfish Gene" thing?

Genes Are Primal And Genomes Are Evolved Organisms

A. In view of the information we now have about life and its evolution:

Earth Life: 1. a format of temporarily constrained energy, retained in temporary constrained genetic energy packages in forms of genes, genomes and organisms 2. a real virtual affair that pops in and out of existence in its matrix, which is the energy constrained in Earth's biosphere.

Earth organism: a temporary self-replicable constrained-energy genetic system that supports and maintains Earth's biosphere by maintenance of genes.

Gene: a primal Earth's organism.

Genome: a multigenes organism consisting of a cooperative commune of its member genes.

Cellular organisms: mono- or multi-celled earth organisms.

B. Update of life sciences conceptions is now feasible and urgently desirable:

- Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a form of constrained
energy pocket.

- First were independent individual genes, Earth's primal organisms.

- Genes aggregated cooperatively into genomes, multigenes organisms, with genomes' organs.

- Simultaneously or consequently genomes evolved protective and functional membranes, organs.

- Then followed cellular organisms, with a variety of outer-cell membranes shapes and
functionalities.

This conception is a scientific, NOT TECHNOLOGICAL, life-science innovation.

It is tomorrow's comprehension of life and its evolution.

IT EVOKES INTRIGUING DARWINIAN IMPLICATIONS.

IT IS FRAUGHT WITH INTRIGUING TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS POTENTIALS.

Suggesting,

Dov Henis

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1

Dov Henis said: [A lot of blather.] - Earth's biosphere phenomenon is a distant relative of black holes, a form of constrained energy pocket. [Another lot of blather.]