Shermer and Dembski in Bridgewater

I'm proud of you for not mentioning The Bridgewater Treatises, particularly Babbage's Fragment, which seems to come closest of them to Dembski's blather.

Cordova is an ID spokesman?

Dude! Great review, and it sounds like you had a lot of fun - I hope someone has video of you bringing up 1966 on Dembski! BTW - You say that you talked to Sal... were you able to actually shake hands with him, or did you slide right over his slimey skin without actually touching him?

I am sure Dembski wasn't interested in conversing because one of the tougher Christian kids had just given him a wedgie. Dembski just seems to me to be the kind to bring that out in people.

Thanks

Cordova is an ID spokesman?

Jason, I saw Dembski give lectures on consecutive nights when he was in Berkeley last year. That experience plus your review gives me a nice picture of the evening's events. Thanks. One question: Did Dembski show his cow slide?

All this effort and expense to get religion into schools. I don't see how they can keep coming back over and over again without losing all enthusiasm for finding new ways to tell old lies, and vice versa. Keeping barbarians from taking over the schools is vital, but it is such a waste of time and talent.

Is there a silver lining in this somewhere? I think there are many people that would have missed the chance to appreciate the marvel that is evolution, absent these efforts to combat IDiots. I know I am glad I didn't miss that image of Hox expression in D. Melanogaster that PZ posted a while ago.

It would be nice to think that a final victory might be around the corner, but not likely. Thanks Jason and thanks Michael, for this.

Jason,

Was Dembski's video "The Inner Life of a Cell?" If so, it's a pretty damn good representation of what we think cellular processes look like (although it contains no voice-over, so maybe this isn't the one Dembski showed). The kinesins are way mass rad. Here's the link:http://youtube.com/watch?v=kxSLw1LMvgk

Good on ya, Jason!

Dembski won the debate, but I must salute Shermer's honorable and courageous performance in the face of overwhelming odds.

Wow, seems that Salvador, Davescot and now the overwhelming crowd seem to all be exposing their scientific vacuity at the same time. Sal on the supposed victory by Dembski against Shermer, Davescot showing his ignorance about yet another topic, this time global warming and then overwhelming with their ignore that which they donot understand response to yet another destruction of Behe's arguments.

Seems that Id indeed attracts the intelligently challenged crowd.

He was keen to emphasize the significance of the word "Blind."

I'll bet he was. A designed eye for a designed eye makes their whole worldview blind. (My apologies to Ghandi.)

Dembski seems to have gotten over his "Barbara Forrest won't debate me about Dover!" phase. Or not.

cordova at UD: Dembski won the debate

Despite this and some very minor setbacks we are certainly winning. The ACLU and friends may like to boast about their stolen victory in Dover, but the simple fact is we are already winning in the only court that counts: The American People.

I note that over at Uncommon Descent your good friend Sal Cordova is claiming victory on behalf of Dembski:

Is it a given that "rethinkers" of any flavour will declare themselves to be the victor in a debate if they still maintain their original set of beliefs at the end.

Once again somebody failed to convince Dembski that he was wrong. What a surprise. If there is one thing that can be predicted with 100% certianty is that these people will never admit to being wrong.

Remember after Ohio when the Discovery Institute scam artists were laying low and they attended the Texas debacle. Dembski didn't list the Disocovery Institute on the junk he gave the Texas board, and one of the Discovery Institute wiz kids even lied to the board about his Discovery Institute affiliation. Now, Dembski is listing the Discovery Institute instead of his college, why? Dover paints the Discovery Institute as liars worse than the Meyer and Wells snake oil presentation to the Ohio board where they had the give the Ohio board a replacement scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed instead of any ID science to teach.

So why would Dembski admit to affiliation with the Discovery Institute, now? Any publicity is good? His current institution doesn't want to be painted with the brush of dishonesty smearing ID at this time? Does he have to do a certain number of scam shows for the Discovery Institute to keep his stipend coming in? After Dover maybe the DI is demanding some sort of accountability for their money. After Minnich and Behe admitted under oath that they basically haven't done squat for their paycheck, and claimed that they didn't know of anyone else doing any science to test ID, it must have burned at least the guy footing most of the bill. Heck, didn't Berlinski claim that he never bought into the ID junk, so why is he still getting his stipend, or is he?

Perhaps Dembski listed the DI instead of his current Texas location because he had to use a more permanent address.

Dembski argued that it's not enough to identify one possible stepping stone toward evolving a flagellum. Rather, a "complete, fully articulated evolutionary path" is required. Required for what, one wonders? Unless we can spell out every step in the evolution of a complex system we should accept ID?

a Christian whose love of her Lord enabled her to be accepting of all children of God."

Jason --- Very good. Both the reporting and your humble remarks at the debate.

Question for you: Did Sal appear to be sane when you spoke to him?

I've followed the evolution-anti-evolution debate for some time now and am posting my first comment in hopes of a more rational discussion on the larger view of the nature of scientific investigation. Please help me understand if my thinking is flawed (I'll start with my first question to see if it's worth continuing):
1. there is a hierarchy of scientific knowledge, which for the sake of structure I think of as hypothesis < theory < law. By this I mean a hypothesis is any idea, no matter how seemingly counter-intuitive (flying spaghetti monsters would, by this definition, be allowed). A theory is formulated on the basis of data, and when applied to a new data set, has predictive value. A law has been used widely in time, place and by many different users, and always predicts precisely. By this analysis ID would be acceptable as a hypothesis and evolution would be acceptable as a theory. Both can be taught in science class. In fact, I wouldn't want a child of mine to be in a science class that wouldn't teach this way.

Next up was a video allegedly showing the complexity of what goes on within the cell. Animated, personified proteins carried out various incomprehensible tasks while a voice-over provided rapid-fire, jargon-laden descriptions of what was going on.

It seems no one asked the question I would like to hear Dembski address: How did he make the fart noises for his flash animation? Was it pursed lips, the armpit technique, the double palm technique, or were they, ahem, genuine?

ptisdall said: By this analysis ID would be acceptable as a hypothesis and evolution would be acceptable as a theory. Both can be taught in science class. In fact, I wouldn't want a child of mine to be in a science class that wouldn't teach this way.

I've followed the evolution-anti-evolution debate for some time now and am posting my first comment in hopes of a more rational discussion on the larger view of the nature of scientific investigation. Please help me understand if my thinking is flawed (I'll start with my first question to see if it's worth continuing): 1. there is a hierarchy of scientific knowledge, which for the sake of structure I think of as hypothesis theory law.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Is it a given that "rethinkers" of any flavour will declare themselves to be the victor in a debate if they still maintain their original set of beliefs at the end.

They offer definitons of facts, hypotheses, and laws in the same document.

To add to the fun, usage of the terms has shifted over time, and they are somewhat vague. But yes, a hypothesis (as the word is used) is not just any old idea that sauntered in the door.

A hypothesis can be counter-intuitive and bizarre sure, but it should be in general accord with known facts. (So far so good for the FSM). But a hypothesis should also have some hope of becoming a scientific theory. So it should be possible to develop a hypothesis to the point where it can be corroborated (or refuted) by evidence. And it should have the possibility of the sort of rigour expected of a scientific theory. (Not so good for FSMism.) And a few other odds and ends that aren't mentioned much: It shouldn't have any unnecessary protuberances or baroqueness. (The "midgit" of FSM creation would be such an ornament). And it should assume a uniformity to the universe at a suitably abstract level. So no theories of the sun going cubical tomorrow despite being round until now, not without good reason. (Such theories would be in accord with the evidence, but they shouldn't be considered seriously).

Now, hypothesis may not start out meeting many of these conditions. But the expectation is that they will make progress towards becoming scientific theories or be abandoned. Witness, for example, the current controversy over whether string theory has become moribund.

Its fascinating to read this summary (and comments) of the debate and compare it with the Uncommon Descent summary and comments.

A short digression: When I worked in IT in a big company I went on a course about how to build relationships with key executives of IT users. The theory was that psychologically IT people tended to deal in figures and facts, and other workers in the company tended to deal with persuasion and vision. So when a chief marketing executive said "Your damn systems are no good, they are always failing" it was no good responding "The system has been available 99.8% of the time as agreed". His/her view was formed by the frustrations of trying to do his/her job, which he/she saw marketing as vital to the success of the company. Being told that the systems (which were vital to the success of the company) worked as designed just did not align with his/her world view.

Similarly when you have an evolution/ID debate like this between scientists and faith based people, its no good the scientists piling fact on fact because they just don't apply to the world view of the faithful. Dr Dembski's arguments about ID, CSI etc. will have no traction on scientific fact unless they can be used to do real science. No wonder 'each side' claimed victory - both were right in their own eyes.

I am not convinced by poor science, conspiracy theories, or faith based arguments (which one, there are so many!). Personally I accept that the Theory of Evolution is a good scientific paradigm, and it will take some really good science to overturn it. But then I used to argue that 99.8% was a really good computer availability...

So why would Dembski admit to affiliation with the Discovery Institute, now? Any publicity is good? His current institution doesn't want to be painted with the brush of dishonesty smearing ID at this time?

a hypothesis is any idea, no matter how seemingly counter-intuitive (flying spaghetti monsters would, by this definition, be allowed). A theory is formulated on the basis of data, and when applied to a new data set, has predictive value. A law has been used widely in time, place and by many different users, and always predicts precisely.

Thank you all for your comments. It seems to me that some of the comments slip into sloppy technique. For example, "as used in science"...what, you speak for all science? Having no idea of my experience makes it seem somewhat arrogant to argue by condescension. In fact, there is broad usage of these terms in many different disciplines. Different posts here use the terms somewhat differently. That's why I've come to my definition of the terms over time. Whatever words you choose to use, I think it's better to have some quantitative elements such as no data, hard to disprove < no data, easy to disprove < some data and some predictive ability < lots of data and excellent predictive capacity. I stand by my opinion that any idea can stand as a hypothesis. The ability to test it is the measure of how good a hypothesis it is. The history of science is very clear that many great leaps forward are made by contrarians. Tectonic plate theory serves as a good example but much of Bryson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything is about Establishment Science's embarrassments. Authority is not an acceptable form of proof in science for me.
Nor do I believe that science has to be performed in a lab. Einstein had thought experiments as a gov't bureaucrat. His "photon has mass" hypothesis had no data and no one could figure out how to test for it for years. As for string theory, it is out my experience and beyond my abilities, but it seems to serve as a good example of the preceding argument.

To ptisdall

Einstein's work is a good example of the "theoretical outrunning the experimental" . But let's not apply this comparison to ID. The proponents of ID would have the "theoretical" taught to kids in high school before any "experimental" work was done. Lots of "theoretical" ideas never made it past the blackboard, and certainly did not make it in the classroom. The true face of ID is an attempt to replace an existing paradigm for religious reasons. It is a political and PR movement only.

The thing that separates most ID folks from the Naturalists is the idea of one species changing into another. What is the predictive value, and or what would be a current use of the ability to use this part of the concept for some future engineering or predicting.

Re "I stand by my opinion that any idea can stand as a hypothesis. The ability to test it is the measure of how good a hypothesis it is. "

Those two sentences contradict each other.

Henry

This post seems to be a bit more objective than the one by Salvador over at UD, but there are still comments that resemble mud slinging. I know it's quite difficult to be ever patient, but it really can ruin it to make those sort of low blows. Even if one is making a great argument an observer may be turned off.

'The debate was held at Bridgewater College, a small liberal arts school affiliated with the Church of the Brethren, as part of their Anna B. Mow Lecture Series. '

Remember, ID has nothing whatever to with religion.

I stand by my opinion that any idea can stand as a hypothesis.

The ability to test it is the measure of how good a hypothesis it is.

The history of science is very clear that many great leaps forward are made by contrarians.

Authority is not an acceptable form of proof in science for me.

The thing that separates most ID folks from the Naturalists is the idea of one species changing into another.

What is the predictive value, and or what would be a current use of the ability to use this part of the concept for some future engineering or predicting.

Thank you all for your help. So here's the problem as I see it. Americans are not generally literate in science and, in my opinion, I think there is a growing credibility for ID in the non-science community, and for all the wrong reasons. Evolution as science is fine, but there a deep fear across the broad spectrum of Christians, ranging in depth from biblical literalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses to mainstream types like the Episcopals, that evolution teaches that there is no God. This will be an intractable problem until we find a way to invite these people to the science table. To do that, we need to start with the premise that science is a technique applied to the natural world and they can use it to. I think, and this is still at the "hypothesis" stage :), that teaching that they can participate, as long as they play by the rules, is a way to defuse the situation. That is why I would welcome ID in my science class. For the evangelical group to submit themselves to the intellectual rigor of a testable hypothesis with skeptical peer review forces them to participate in a constructive rather than the present destructive way. That they have a political motivation is exactly why KL, of all the "no data-unable to disprove hypotheses" one could choose, I would start with theirs. So to MarkP, I would never refer to scientific as opposed to mere hypotheses, it's condescending and will offend. I see no problem in letting anyone in science class say God created the world. I would only ask how one could test the hypothesis, and failing a good answer, relegate it to the weak hypothesis category.

Mark, what does weasel-wording have to do with it, and why is the use of the word naturalist a problem for you?

Certainly the issue of one new species growing out of other species is the main event. Darwin even said something to the effect that if the fossil evidence didn't eventually find such interspecies data, that his theory would be in some trouble (badly paraphrased.)

Everyone knows that, and I don't know anyone who doesn't accept that, there is substantial variation within a species.

I'm not sure that your engineering offering of what other animals parts will be useful as substitutes works. This would seem to be more likely deducible from size, function, etc. But I'm open to being persuaded of this.

So to MarkP, I would never refer to scientific as opposed to mere hypotheses, it's condescending and will offend.

Randy Kirk Said: Mark, what does weasel-wording have to do with it, and why is the use of the word naturalist a problem for you?

the issue of one new species growing out of other species is the main event. Darwin even said something to the effect that if the fossil evidence didn't eventually find such interspecies data, that his theory would be in some trouble (badly paraphrased.)

Everyone knows that, and I don't know anyone who doesn't accept that, there is substantial variation within a species.

I'm not sure that your engineering offering of what other animals parts will be useful as substitutes works. This would seem to be more likely deducible from size, function, etc. But I'm open to being persuaded of this.

"He pointed out that the sorts of probability calculations Dembski says are essential to his theory are in fact impossible to carry out."

Besides the probability calculations, Dembski, like Behe makes reference to irreducible complexity, a concept with a rigourous formal basis in Kolmogorov Complexity. But here you are even worse off in terms of provability. Many probablilistic calculations are provable, given enough time and perfect knowledge. But there is a cute theorem in Kolmogorov Complexity (you can find it in Li and Vitanyi) that for any axiom system only a finite number of irreducibly complex machines can be proved as such! This would be like claiming that your theory rests on the proof that most interesting numbers are prime but you could only prove a number prime if it was less than 60. I have not delved into Demski's main book, but sampled a number of his papers and discussions on the net have never really seen him give a rigorous mathematical basis to irreducible complexity and its implications. Eventually he throws out numbers and equations that only go so far. A good criticsm of Dembski by Rich Baldwin summarizes the previous point with the understated and ironic criticism "As a side note, Kolmogorov complexity has the disadvantage of being uncomputable and hence makes a poor metric."

Unfortunately, the evolutionary side has fared no better. The concept of irreducible complexity is self-evident. But the arguments made against Dembski and Behe are not very good. Many are in the form of "well, I can come up with a machine that works almost as good as the one you describe". To use the metaphor of the Behe mousetrap, they show that you can remove the base and still have a trap that works almost as good. I think of it as the "mousetrap rock" argument. That it, any machine can be approximated by a common rock. To replace the mousetrap, you just hold a rock in your hand, and when the mouse runs under it, you drop the rock. Almost as good as a real mousetrap. I wish that the evolutionary side were to actually embrace the reality of irreducible complexity and to come up with some rigourous results to show how irreducible complexity naturally arises from the process of evolution.

You've not heard people talk about Muller's Interlocking Complexity paper from sixty years ago?

Try this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html

Mark P, I really doubt that anybody was intending to pejorative in calling anyone a Darwinist or a Naturalist. I can assure you it was the furthest thing from my mind. However, in order to have a debate, it is important to have clear understandings of the terms, none more important that the name of the opposition. So, is there a correct term other than "everyone else."

I have seen much of what has been proposed as inter species evidence. I don't think the case is closed, but it might be some day. Certainly it would be a bitter pill for Christians if all of life is provably derived from other life, and not created whole cloth. So the evidence will have to be reallllly strong!

I think I see your point on the engineering, even though you make it from exception rather than from the general case.

Mark P, I really doubt that anybody was intending to pejorative in calling anyone a Darwinist or a Naturalist. I can assure you it was the furthest thing from my mind. However, in order to have a debate, it is important to have clear understandings of the terms, none more important that the name of the opposition. So, is there a correct term other than "everyone else."

I have seen much of what has been proposed as inter species evidence. I don't think the case is closed, but it might be some day. Certainly it would be a bitter pill for Christians if all of life is provably derived from other life, and not created whole cloth. So the evidence will have to be reallllly strong!

I think I see your point on the engineering, even though you make it from exception rather than from the general case.

but there a deep fear across the broad spectrum of Christians, ranging in depth from biblical literalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses to mainstream types like the Episcopals, that evolution teaches that there is no God

this, of course, is only a problem because these people are not taught to think critically about what people like 'pastor Ted' tell them. When pastor Ted LIES to his "flock" and tells them that evolution is teaching that god is dead, well, an uncritical audience then carries that message with them.

If we could somehow shut down all the frickin' lying-ass hucksters like Haggard and Fallwell and Ham, eventually this would help shut down a lot of the "fears" of the rest of the folks who simply don't know any better.

Re "Certainly it would be a bitter pill for Christians if all of life is provably derived from other life, and not created whole cloth."

Why? Why should belief in Christianity require believing that God would be unable to use evolution as a method?

Also, why should "created" be construed as conflicting with descended from ancestors? As far as I know, "created" means caused to come into existence, i.e., saying something was created doesn't imply anything about what methods were used or how long it took.

Henry

Mark P,

I'll take my chances walking on the wild side. I will make no suggestion that I have the depth of education or knowledge that those on this blog have with regard to the details of the science. However, the very point is that the science, the philosophy of science, and the obvious anger of those on both sides with regard to each other are all part of real life.

I'm not hear to change your mind with regard to believing or not. What I'm trying to do by visiting here and elsewhere and by starting my own blog is to bring more understanding among people, reduce the negatives and name calling. Work together for truth.

Sir has an example of what I'd like to see less of in civil debate. The stereotyping in his comment is no less offensive or incorrect than if his target had been blacks or gays. Just still accepted by some.

The bitter pill would be that the literal translation of Genesis would be pretty hard to squeeze into a completely natural explanation. Not impossible, just more difficult.

I do not think your last comments are persuasive at all. I will address later. But for starters, If God Did It, he could have millions of reasons for making things so similar as our yawns and so different as some of the new creatures being discovered in the world just this year.

...I will make no suggestion that I have the depth of education or knowledge that those on this blog have with regard to the details of the science. However, the very point is that the science, the philosophy of science, and the obvious anger of those on both sides with regard to each other are all part of real life.

I'm not hear to change your mind with regard to believing or not. What I'm trying to do by visiting here and elsewhere and by starting my own blog is to bring more understanding among people, reduce the negatives and name calling. Work together for truth.

Sir has an example of what I'd like to see less of in civil debate. The stereotyping in his comment is no less offensive or incorrect than if his target had been blacks or gays. Just still accepted by some.

The bitter pill would be that the literal translation of Genesis would be pretty hard to squeeze into a completely natural explanation. Not impossible, just more difficult.

I do not think your last comments are persuasive at all. I will address later. But for starters, If God Did It, he could have millions of reasons for making things so similar as our yawns and so different as some of the new creatures being discovered in the world just this year.

Sir,

I actually do have a background in science, with an undergraduate degree in Psych from UCLA. Having said that, I still can't play in your sandbox on the details. But it doesn't change the fact that of qualifications to discuss philosophy of science, religion, general philosphy, or just debate common sense.

You clearly know so much that I can't tell you anything that would be valuable to your understanding of anything. So why try.

You may find that with age you'll find out that "the older you get the more you find out that you don't know." Seems to be part of the process.

I still can't play in your sandbox on the details.

You may find that with age you'll find out that "the older you get the more you find out that you don't know." Seems to be part of the process.

Randy Kirk said: However, the very point is that the science, the philosophy of science, and the obvious anger of those on both sides with regard to each other are all part of real life.

What I'm trying to do by visiting here and elsewhere and by starting my own blog is to bring more understanding among people, reduce the negatives and name calling. Work together for truth.

Randy Kirk said: I do not think your last comments are persuasive at all. I will address later. But for starters, If God Did It, he could have millions of reasons for making things so similar as our yawns

Randy Kirk said: I still can't play in your sandbox on the details. But it doesn't change the fact that of qualifications to discuss philosophy of science, religion, general philosphy, or just debate common sense. You clearly know so much that I can't tell you anything that would be valuable to your understanding of anything. So why try. You may find that with age you'll find out that "the older you get the more you find out that you don't know." Seems to be part of the process.

I don't know how good my communication skills are, although they have served me well over the years. Maybe it's just something personal for you.

If I know way more about dogs than you do, does that keep you from making the analogy about dogs and cats? If I know way more about psychology than you do, are you going to back away from the psychological aspects of the god debate? I doubt it.

This is an age of specialization, and if I started tomorrow, I wouldn't catch you in your specialization in my lifetime. But it doesn't disqualify me from the argument, it just gives you an edge.

And the comment about wisdom and aging suggested the opposite of what you have proposed. Moreover it is a famous quotation (probably poorly paraphrased.)

I don't get this. The triplets are identical. The cat and dog are similar, but having enjoyed the companion of many same over the years, really very, very different. Come to think of it, the twins in my family looked a lot a like, but they weren't much alike beyond the looks.

I'm pretty sure I'm being obtuse on your point, but not on purpose.

Mark P,

Don't know about my ability to communicate in English, but clearly I've blown it with KwickXML.

My thought with regard to age and wisdom is a famous quote (potentially paraphrased poorly, but I don't think so.) It has the opposite meaning from that which you give it. I am far less certain about what I know that I know today than I was at 25 or 35. I do have strong, passionate opinions, but have always been open minded and tending towards ecumenicalism. So, even now, I'm trying to bridge gaps of understanding between believers and Xtheists.

I am also well aware of many of the reasons for anger. You only need to spend two minutes in this blog to hear it. Is the anger justified? Maybe. Is the response any more appropriate than it would be for any other angry citizen who could make a case for their anger being justified.

I happen to believe that honest, reasoned, and trusting discourse is far more likely to bring truth.

I happen to believe that honest, reasoned, and trusting discourse is far more likely to bring truth.

Randy Kirk said: I am also well aware of many of the reasons for anger. You only need to spend two minutes in this blog to hear it. Is the anger justified? Maybe. Is the response any more appropriate than it would be for any other angry citizen who could make a case for their anger being justified.

Mark P.,

Oh, the anger I have seen goes far beyond your own particular brand. Anger over tax breaks, discrimination, bigotry, schools teaching ID or trying to, hypocrisy of church leadership or even laity, and so much more. Some of it clearly moves into bitterness, but before you get even more unhappy with me, there is plenty of bitterness in every "group." And the bitterness can start to look like victimization.

I have extensively debated Xtheists on whether government really favors theism or naturalistic thinking in science. I've seen recent articles (angry) regarding supposed creationist materials at the grand canyon. But, truly, everywhere I travel (and I travel a lot, the museums and national parks all assume naturalistic explanations for everything. And almost always it is the very latest theory.

The NASA sight once gave a breathless interpretation of new info from Hubble that never once used a modifier like maybe, or potentially. And this was based on two day old info.

Whoops! Wrong soapbox.

Mark P.,

Yep! Now I get where you were going. Whatever has gone before in your life seems to give you a skepticism about people intent (which intent might be the most provable aspect of current US law that comes directly from OT) I was not intentionally being obtuse with regard to your example. Just didn't get it.

As to the example. If I look at granite and quartz , should I also see cousins, or merely similar structures. I can see huge benefits to having created a system for comparing various animals, plants, etc, placing them in groups by similarities. And I won't say 100% that my cat isn't my cousin. I can even say that there is good reason to make such a claim based on intuitive thinking. You can even go one step further and say that the unraveling of the genetic code may lend more cred to the whole idea that we are cousins. It would not "necessarily" mean that God didn't create each without evolution as the tool. Sufficiency maybe.

Randy Kirk --- Quartz is one of the mineral components of granite. Geez! Do some simple checking using, say, Wikipedia, before you post?

Well, it has been half a century since I was excited about rocks. Your right, David. Should have checked.

Randy Kirk said: I won't say 100% that my cat isn't my cousin.

there is a hierarchy of scientific knowledge, which for the sake of structure I think of as hypothesis theory law

Rosenhouse makes a formidable and convincing argument, but there is actually a more formidable and almost invulnerable counter argument (which I will give briefly) ... But for the reader's benefit, and to try to put a rest to some of this, the more solid but tediously formal argument against Rosenhouse's thesis is laid out in Design Inference. Understandably because of time constraints, Bill did not bring out the big guns of formalisms laid in Design Inference. The formalisms demonstrate that there is a moot point crushing the Darwinist position, namely that Darwinists arguments are logically self-contradictory probability arguments of the form: "E = not-E" (page 46). Bill even uses the phrase reductio ad absurdum to described what his formalism demonstrates.

— Salvador

Darwinists arguments are logically self-contradictory probability arguments of the form: "E = not-E"

According to Dembski, the only reasonable conclusion is that it isn't a fair die, no matter what the outcome is.

Salvador is wrong on at least three counts:

Frankly, I would like to see the actual words of both sides.

I don't trust anyones "accounts" around here.

I happen to believe that honest, reasoned, and trusting discourse is far more likely to bring truth.

Another good point is to approach the problem this way: If two groups have long-lasting differences of opinion on factual matters, it is often the case that one side simply has too much emotional attachment to their POV to be able to accept the facts.

Now gee, which group here does that describe most? Those resisting evolution have placed much of their personal morality and sense of identity on premises that they believe evolution challenges. They say so, and for once I take them at their word. Accepting evolution and its implications would turn their world upside down, at least temporarily.

On the other hand, for all except perhaps professional biologists and Darwin's descendents, the scientific overturning of evolution (say proof positive that life was seeded here at various times by aliens) would elicit no more emotion or life import than did the overturning of Newtonian physics by Einstein. We'd just change a few assumptions about the world and move on.

The retort to this will no doubt be some version of "You atheists rely on Darwinism to turn away from Gawd, and without it, you would have to accept Him". I have no doubt you people believe that, but get a clue: WE DON'T. Even if you disproved evolutionary theory absolutely, I would still be an atheist, and I have a ton of company.

Creationist/IDers are covering their emotional asses, because they just can't accept what they believe are the implications of evolutionary theory. That's the bottom line, and one cannot have "honest, reasoned, and trusting discourse" with such people, nor is it desired by them. They don't want THE truth, they want THEIR truth.

Flint and Mark P,

Thanks for the reasoned arguments.

You "believe" that some, many, most ID folks come into the debate with wrong motives, then use unethical methods to try and win the day.

I suggest that you will have better chance of moving the ball if you choose to "believe" that they either honestly have a passionate desire to preserve what they believe to be truth, or that they, bless their hearts, just aren't smart enough, educated enough, or flexible in their thinking enough, to see what you see.

Then, just add a dash of humility. Maybe there is a God. Maybe much of current evolutionary theory will end up like the absolute certainty of a coming ice age during the 80's. I appreciate science at least as much as you all. I make my living combining chemicals, heating them up, and forming them into useful articles. I have a patent, and have invented other items. My dad was an engineer.

But, and pardon the quick switch in set, I don't understand how my wife intuits things. She says I am all logic, and I can't get inside her emotional way of handling things. Some folks have charisma (I don't), that help them to fame and fortune while more talented folks get no where. There is something more going on in this world than matter and energy. Or at least I thing humble folks would say their just might be. It doesn't mean you have to believe in God, or certainly in my God, it is enough to say to someone, "I can see where you are coming from, and why. And I don't think your a dufus or a fool to think that way. That is what is happening on my new site.

You "believe" that some, many, most ID folks come into the debate with wrong motives, then use unethical methods to try and win the day.

Maybe much of current evolutionary theory will end up like the absolute certainty of a coming ice age during the 80's.

Then, just add a dash of humility.

Slightly OT: "Maybe much of current evolutionary theory will end up like the absolute certainty of a coming ice age during the 80's."
Except that this 'absolute certainty' was almost entirely a figment of a few journalists' imagination. A couple of climatologists said that if things continue as they are at present, in a few tens of thousands of years there will be another ice age. This was picked up by a news magazine and interpreted as 'the next ice age is on its way'. From there it spread from journalist to journalist and the time frame seemed to vanish. As far as I can tell, not one climatologist said that an ice age was imminent (coming in the next 10,000 years).

If IDers are as honest as you seem to believe, why is so easy to find blatant untruths in all they say or write? It is perhaps excusable in people who admit to knowing almost nothing about the subject, but the people who actively promote it must either know they are lying or have a serious disconnect in their minds (possibly the latter - I knew a Young Earth Creationist who, for his physics master's thesis did what I was told was good research on a dating method for rocks about 100 million years old).

Randy Kirk continues to assume that scientists and creationists have similar goals, just different ways of getting there. And this is so totally wrong that Randy Kirk can't even locate the argument.

Scientists have the primary goal of understanding how the universe works, and the secondary goal of showing what they've learned to everyone else (they understand that nobody can be an expert at everything).

Creationists have the goal of getting everyone to behave the way creationists WANT them to behave. Creationists do not care how the universe works. As far as science is concerned, creationists only care that certain scientific understandings happen to oppose their goal of controlling people, and forcing them to behave as the creationists demand.

For scientists, honesty has always been an absolute non-negotiable requirement. The universe is what it is, and there's no way to trick it or lie to it to get it to be anything else. So honesty is taken for granted by scientists as being necessary. For creationists, inculcating proper belief and coercing proper behavior is the absolute non-negotiable. It is neither necessary to know or understand any evidence, nor to be honest in presenting evidence, UNLESS this leads toward the goal. If it does not, then people must be misinformed and otherwise tricked into Right Belief.

Whether the creationists have a "wrong" motive isn't really the point. Unlike reality, people CAN be tricked and lied to and brainwashed. Whereas scientists want knowledge, creationists want POWER. Maybe scientists, not oriented toward the desire for power, don't quite grasp that some knowledge undermines that goal. But creationists, concerned ONLY with power, are intensely aware of any challenge to their social goals.

And so we're back to the "best-fit" approach. Scientists look for explanations that best fit their data. Creationists look for tactics that best fit their social agenda. Facts, to be useful, must be engineered for this purpose. For the creationist, there is no other purpose. It's the only game in town.

Randy Kirk said: I suggest that you will have better chance of moving the ball if you choose to "believe" that they either honestly have a passionate desire to preserve what they believe to be truth, or that they, bless their hearts, just aren't smart enough, educated enough, or flexible in their thinking enough, to see what you see.

Then, just add a dash of humility. Maybe there is a God.

There is something more going on in this world than matter and energy. Or at least I thing humble folks would say their just might be.

Where's the "humility" on your side, Mr. Kirk? When a self-appointed minister who knows absolutely nothing about how science works pretends he knows more about it than actual scientists, then accuses those scientists of some monstrous conspiracy to eradicate religion and morality from public life, that's not humility; that's colossal arrogance, not to mention bearing false witness against people who have done no wrong, for the purpose of sowing discord among well-meaning people (for which activity there's a really nasty place in Hell, at least according to Dante).

Every time anyone stands up to question the word of a "holy man," he/she is accused of lacking humility and/or not knowing his/her proper place. The advice to "add a dash of humility" is almost never sincerely offered -- it's a put-down. Humility is for the little people, not those in charge.

PS: if "humility" did not stop Jesus from telling high priests, to their faces, that they were wrong, why should it stop us from questioning the "holy" people of our own generation?

Religion, false though it may be, is the only reliable instrument for shaping the average person into an obedient and well-behaved subject of state and society, by Norman Levitt, mathematician at Rutgers University
link

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise. -- Proverbs 1:7

Religion, false though it may be, is the only reliable instrument for shaping the average person into an obedient and well-behaved subject of state and society, by Norman Levitt, mathematician at Rutgers University

ptisdall said: "ID would be acceptable as a hypothesis and evolution would be acceptable as a theory. Both can be taught in science class. In fact, I wouldn't want a child of mine to be in a science class that wouldn't teach this way."

In your opinion, roughly how much time should be spent teaching children about ID? A sentence? A lesson? A week of lessons? Longer?

Evolution isn't the only example of a well proven scientific principle which has an alternative of some popularity with little science behind it. For a couple of examples, homeopathy is a direct challenge to how chemistry works, and Flood geology is a direct challenge to geology (as is the Hindu fundamentalist belief that humans have been around for billions of years). Similar sorts of challenges exist in other subjects. If you believe that ID should be taught in the classroom, what about these other challenges?

Should trainee pilots be taught about levitation through Transcendental Meditation? Should trainee surgeons be taught about psychic surgery? Should crane drivers be taught about telekinesis?

And herein lies the problem. If all these controversies are taught, how much time is left to teach things we know *are* so?

"Evolution as science is fine, but there a deep fear across the broad spectrum of Christians, ranging in depth from biblical literalists like the Jehovah's Witnesses to mainstream types like the Episcopals, that evolution teaches that there is no God."

The important thing to understand is that while evolutionary theory shows that God isn't necessary for the current variety of life of Earth to have come into existence, that does not prove that God doesn't exist.

The important thing to understand is that while evolutionary theory shows that God isn't necessary for the current variety of life of Earth to have come into existence, that does not prove that God doesn't exist.

I listened to Shermer debate Dembski on Dembski's radio show a while back, and it was frustrating listening to Dembski basically dictate the direction of the conversation for the entire show. Personally, I would love to see Dembski forced to go on the defensive and have his religious beliefs held up to the same scrutiny to which he holds evolution: Do bad things happen to good people because a talking snake told a woman to eat an apple 6,000 years ago? How did Noah fit two of every species onto a single boat? If you believe there is a supernatural being who selectively suspends the laws of nature, what basis would you have for denying that this being sends a team of pixies to carry me to work every morning? These are the kinds of questions I would like to see Dembski forced to answer rather than comfortably sitting back and trying to poke holes in well-established scientific theory.

Flint,

Stereotypes are very useful and often true. However, they can also disrupt the search for truth. Almost all of science is based on finding varying versions of stereotypes, but it is critical that we remain open minded enough to see the atypical.

Similarly, while one might expect scientists to have more integrity than some other groups, this may or may not be the case today.

1. Press releases with regard to results of experiments or new observations are often filled with hype and hyperbole.

2. Many scientists clearly have agendas that are effected by their politics.

3. Some scientists seem worried about their ability to advance in their departments if they cross the boss.

4. Grants are often politically driven.

5. Money is in the game for sure now, with colleges needing funding, and profs starting companies out of university sponsored work.

6. Corporations, the government, and other groups are funding scientists with desired outcomes known in advance.

7. Even the very ethical scientist is likely to read previous research, create experiments, and evaluate results through a lens favorable to their personal persuasion.

8. The power of being seen as influential or setting the direction for ones field is a powerful siren song.

I'm not knocking science. I think these are issues that need to be addressed by both science and the larger community. I am saying that there is plenty of questionable behavior to go around.

Almost all of science is based on finding varying versions of stereotypes

LOL.

another nice example of projection.

I tell ya, Randy, the irony is that you're the one who is reinforcing the stereotype around here.

it's just not the one you think.

Personally, I would love to see Dembski forced to go on the defensive and have his religious beliefs held up to the same scrutiny to which he holds evolution...

I'm not knocking science. I think these are issues that need to be addressed by both science and the larger community. I am saying that there is plenty of questionable behavior to go around.

Not to mention it is the height of irony (and by reading this site, I note that the Heights of Irony are legion) that you should accuse science of being politicized, instead favoring a movement which exists solely for political reasons.

Actually, I shouldn't say "solely". The ID movement also allows its proponents to earn a living. Cf scientists known personally to me, only a very small fraction of whom went into their professions for the money.

In the course of debating (even friends and family), there is a common experience. Someone makes an accusation. The other debater agrees that the accusation has merit, but suggests that the opponent might look at his own house, as well. Not as a method of distracting from the failure of the first person, but in order to give rise to empathy.

But what commonly happens is that instead of empathy, the first party becomes defensive and lashes out.

In no way would I claim that there aren't folks in the religious community who have inappropriate motives. But there seemed to be a thread of opinion here that this was why you are so angry with ID'rs. That the anger might be reasonable, but should be mitigated by empathy, is my point.

As to stereotypes, the first point of all science is to put things into categories, to see commonalities, and principles that are universal or true for all within a group, or did I miss something.

But what commonly happens is that instead of empathy, the first party becomes defensive and lashes out.

Disclaimer: everything I write in this post are assumptions and guesses.

Randy,

You said, "In no way would I claim that there aren't folks in the religious community who have inappropriate motives. But there seemed to be a thread of opinion here that this was why you are so angry with ID'rs."

I think I see the problem.

It seems to me that you see this as an issue between "naturalists" and "the religious community". It isn't.

If the people that are peddling ID were UFO-believers, or even atheists, you would see the same reactions. The issue isn't that the ID people believe in God; the issue is that the ID people lie, deceive, manipulate, and suggest that their ignorance is more worthwhile than the wisdom of people who have been studying this issue for a very long time. It doesn't really matter that these people are religious; the anger is directed at their long history of lying.

There are *plenty* of theists who accept the current theory of evolution... in fact, considering the percentage of nontheists in the world, it could be easily argued that there are more pro-evolution theists than pro-evolution nontheists. Judaism has no problem with it, the Catholic church has no problem with it (well, for the most part), and many progressive-to-mainstream protestant churches have no problems with it.

Again, Randy, the anger and frustration you see is directed towards people who engage in constant acts of lying, deception, and manipulation. What these liars believe in and what they say motivates them does not matter to many people in the anti-ID crowd; what matters is that they are dishonest and they are using political tricks to change things to be their way, especially since their focus is on children.

Randy, I cannot encourage you enough to study the players in the ID/Creation movement, and read as much as you possibly can of their writings... the more obscure, the better. Then ask yourself if these people are honest, honorable people.

THAT'S our issue with them. They are neither honest nor are they honorable, and they could all be atheists for all I care; I would still fight against them every chance I have.

Thank You,

Kit

Stereotypes are very useful and often true. However, they can also disrupt the search for truth. Almost all of science is based on finding varying versions of stereotypes, but it is critical that we remain open minded enough to see the atypical.

Similarly, while one might expect scientists to have more integrity than some other groups, this may or may not be the case today.

1. Press releases with regard to results of experiments or new observations are often filled with hype and hyperbole.

2. Many scientists clearly have agendas that are effected by their politics.

3. Some scientists seem worried about their ability to advance in their departments if they cross the boss.

4. Grants are often politically driven.

5. Money is in the game for sure now, with colleges needing funding, and profs starting companies out of university sponsored work.

6. Corporations, the government, and other groups are funding scientists with desired outcomes known in advance.

7. Even the very ethical scientist is likely to read previous research, create experiments, and evaluate results through a lens favorable to their personal persuasion.

8. The power of being seen as influential or setting the direction for ones field is a powerful siren song.

I'm not knocking science. I think these are issues that need to be addressed by both science and the larger community. I am saying that there is plenty of questionable behavior to go around.

Kit,

Well said. I have followed some of the ID folks for years. I suspect from reading here and elsewhere that your fund mental problem is the basic premise: Don't call the designer God, and we can change the playing field. This, even though virtually every one pushing ID is Christian.

I would propose that the Christian community felt pushed into that option by the terms of the debate. We all know that he who creates the title of the debate has a distinct advantage.

So if the question as previously posed is: Is evolution true or did God speak everything into existence, then you make the argument that teaching that God did it is public endorsement of religion.

What I would like to see is a more vigorous skepticism. I'm sure from where you sit it appears that there is plenty of skepticism within the community. From where I sit, there seems to be clubbiness and circling of wagons. Not just on evolution, but also on global warming and other such.

J Biggs,

Thanks for that long detailed answer. However, I would challenge you to take the opposite side and provide your own arguments. You acted as if no such things existed, or if they did it was rare and getting rarer.

When GW opponents with huge credentials lose their state posts, are accused of being deniers, and suggestions are made that they are in the pocket of the oil companies, I think there is a problem much bigger than you acknowledge.

When people at the Global Warming Conference in Pasadena (Skeptics) last year applauded those who suggested that there was difficulty in getting advancement within University departments when underlings didn't agree with heads.

I don't really think I'm that into debating this. It is more evident than human caused global warming. Therefore, you must be a denier.

Finally, there are various kinds of truths about objective things. Some are pretty clear (e.g. there is a table in front of me and it is strong enough to hold a computer.) Some are more open to interpretation (the computer is a Mac, so it is faster than its competition in the PC world.) Some is just opinion based on fact (Macs Are better than PC's.)_

Randy,

Unfortunately, I think that you completely missed my point.

You say that your understanding is that my fundamental problem is "Don't call the designer God, and we can change the playing field."

That is NOT my fundamental problem.

As I explained in my post, my fundamental problem is that these people LIE, DECEIVE, and MANIPULATE. Their focus is on children, and they want people to believe and think like they do.

These people are *dominionists*, Randy.

Randy, using your PC vs. Mac idea, if I was to disagree with you on which is "best", I would try to use arguments based on facts that we agree on to try to prove my point. What I wouldn't do is make stuff up in an effort to deceive and manipulate you to accept my point. That is what the ID people do, and that is my fundamental problem with them.

I'll say it again, Randy, this time with feeeeeeling:

I don't care whether or not these people are theists. I really don't. They could all be atheists and it wouldn't change my fundamental problems with them. These people are manipulative liars, and should constantly be shown as such.

A couple of other points:

1. Many muslims also are pro-ID, especially the people who are fans of Harun Yahya, for example. I talk with muslims often on online chat programs (such as Paltalk), and they certainly tend to be anti-evolutionists (and, like nearly all anti-evolutionists, they are incredibly ignorant regarding what the theory of evolution actually *is*... but that's because they've been lied to and manipulated).

2. It's not an issue of "(i)s evolution true or did God speak everything into existence". We don't talk about "truth" with regards to scientific theories; we talk about "is this the best explanation for the data we have?" Also, if you want to throw in "did God speak everything into existence" as a possibility, why not throw in *every creation story ever invented*? Why aren't we (and you) considering the possibility that it was the titan Kronus who created the universe? Why aren't we (and you) considering the possibility that it was the Beyonder (cf Secret Wars) who created the universe? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

We don't consider those possibilities because they are not the best explanations we have, besides their inability to be tested and falsified.

Lastly, regarding teaching "God did it", the primary problem with that is that it doesn't answer any questions because it answers *all* questions. What can we do, scientifically, with the answer "God did it"? Say, for example, that you can't find your keys (a common problem I have), and you ask me, "hey Kit, I can't find my keys. Do you know where they are?" I reply with "God did it". Ok. Now, how, in any way, does that help you find your keys?

Thanks for that long detailed answer. However, I would challenge you to take the opposite side and provide your own arguments.

You acted as if no such things existed, or if they did it was rare and getting rarer.

When GW opponents with huge credentials lose their state posts, are accused of being deniers, and suggestions are made that they are in the pocket of the oil companies, I think there is a problem much bigger than you acknowledge.

When people at the Global Warming Conference in Pasadena (Skeptics) last year applauded those who suggested that there was difficulty in getting advancement within University departments when underlings didn't agree with heads.

I don't really think I'm that into debating this. It is more evident than human caused global warming. Therefore, you must be a denier.

Finally, there are various kinds of truths about objective things. Some are pretty clear (e.g. there is a table in front of me and it is strong enough to hold a computer.) Some are more open to interpretation (the computer is a Mac, so it is faster than its competition in the PC world.) Some is just opinion based on fact (Macs Are better than PC's.)_

That the anger might be reasonable, but should be mitigated by empathy, is my point.

When people at the Global Warming Conference in Pasadena (Skeptics) last year applauded those who suggested that there was difficulty in getting advancement within University departments when underlings didn't agree with heads.

Scientific research funding is mostly supplied by various agencies of the US government in the form of grants and contracts. Some small portion is provided by state agencies (in some states) and privately funded foundations (Carnegie, Sloan, Ford, etc.).

Some universities provide a small amount of so-called start-up funding, with the expectation that the faculty member's research program will attract outside funds from the above organizations.

No quality university will attempt to steer faculty members research direction(s) other than in applied fields such as agriculture. By in large, faculty successful at attracting research monies tend to follow what the granting agencies are emphasizing.

Randy, I'm sorry, but I am slowly being forced to conclude that you are one of these people that likes discussion, but does not like finding answers. It's as though you would see that as the end of the game, and that's no fun.

Randy says: Well said. I have followed some of the ID folks for years. I suspect from reading here and elsewhere that your fund mental problem is the basic premise: Don't call the designer God, and we can change the playing field. This, even though virtually every one pushing ID is Christian.

As I explained in my post, my fundamental problem is that these people LIE, DECEIVE, and MANIPULATE. Their focus is on children, and they want people to believe and think like they do.

...trying to impedance to it.

Mark P,

You have the wrong guy. I spent three years in law school only to decide I hated the law and lawyers. I am the one in this discussion that was a member of the Audubon Society at age 6, considered myself a naturalist by age 12, have always wanted to visit Galapagos, and left the church at age 21 at least in part because of Darwin.

I suspect I have more of a willingness to consider the evidence and change course than the average person. At least that would be my history.

I suspect I have more of a willingness to consider the evidence and change course than the average person. At least that would be my history.

Mark P.,

OK. Are all ID guys like this in your view? Phillip Johnson, for instance? Or would it be some in the ID movement who are the worst offenders? Any names I can research?

Can you give me three really good examples of what you are most concerned about? The three best.

I don't think I see you personally as ant-religion or anti-Christianity. However, I do think that conclusions that are extrapolated from current science are often stated in ways that say: "See! We don't need God to prove that." This then creates a sense within the Christian community that "godless folks are running our universities and have taken over science with a very real purpose and goal. Undermining faith."

Because at the end of the day, he who controls the truth meme, controls society. I think that this is understood by you, and you don't want Christians to control the truth meme anymore.

J Biggs,

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

Global warming is a great place to watch a scientific debate with huge money, political, and power implications that doesn't involve religion. I have been studying the science, the history of the science, and the social/political implications of the science for a few years now. I have posted dozens of articles on my blog http://ideaplace.blogspot.com.

At last year's GW conference, I spoke to friends I made there, listened to the presenters and those who had questions. The president of the university used his time to take on the Bush administration for reducing funds to science, trying to control the debate, and not being in line with his thinking regarding the debate. In other words, money, power, authority, prestige, politics were at the top of his list.

Others I heard from and spoke to made it clear that there was no money or advancement for those who disagreed with the mandidit view, or the view that we are on the verge of a catastrophe that requires massive amounts of help from scientists and government employees.

Since then we have watched the political consequences for three scientists who were so distinguished in their fields that the were the "state" authorities on the subject. But now that they are deniers they are being stripped of these honorary posts.

You may see this as a rare problem. I, and many of my associates, Christian and not, see this as science in real trouble. And along with some of my other points, it brings into question the entire output of the rest.

You don't have to believe anything I just said. But if the "academy" doesn't get its arms around the problem, there is every reason to expect a reaction in the direction of the know-nothings. It doesn't take much for a charismatic leader to take up arms against such oppression.

I decided not to practice law, because lawyers were no longer about justice, and all about Clinton-style parsing. I think science is headed down a similar path.

The first step would be to quit calling your adversaries names, and insulting folks who don't agree with you. Dawkins has just changed the tone of the debate in a way that will make it difficult for science to ever recover its independence.

OK. Are all ID guys like this in your view? Phillip Johnson, for instance? Or would it be some in the ID movement who are the worst offenders? Any names I can research?

According to Phillip E. Johnson, the wedge movement, if not the term, began in 1992: "The movement we now call the wedge made its public debut at a conference of scientists and philosophers held at Southern Methodist University in March 1992, following the publication of his [sic] book Darwin on Trial. The conference brought together key wedge and intelligent design figures, particularly Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and myself."

Can you give me three really good examples of what you are most concerned about? The three best.

I don't think I see you personally as ant-religion or anti-Christianity. However, I do think that conclusions that are extrapolated from current science are often stated in ways that say: "See! We don't need God to prove that." This then creates a sense within the Christian community that "godless folks are running our universities and have taken over science with a very real purpose and goal. Undermining faith."

Because at the end of the day, he who controls the truth meme, controls society. I think that this is understood by you, and you don't want Christians to control the truth meme anymore.

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

Global warming is a great place... ...stripped of these honorary posts.

You may see this as a rare problem. I, and many of my associates, Christian and not, see this as science in real trouble. And along with some of my other points, it brings into question the entire output of the rest.

You don't have to believe anything I just said. But if the "academy" doesn't get its arms around the problem, there is every reason to expect a reaction in the direction of the know-nothings. It doesn't take much for a charismatic leader to take up arms against such oppression.

I decided not to practice law, because lawyers were no longer about justice, and all about Clinton-style parsing. I think science is headed down a similar path.

The first step would be to quit calling your adversaries names, and insulting folks who don't agree with you. Dawkins has just changed the tone of the debate in a way that will make it difficult for science to ever recover its independence.

Randy Kirk --- You seem to have lots of time on your hands. Why not go read several books about The Enlightenment?

It'll do your posts a world of good...

Randy Kirk said: OK. Are all ID guys like this in your view? Phillip Johnson, for instance? Or would it be some in the ID movement who are the worst offenders? Any names I can research?

I don't think I see you personally as ant-religion or anti-Christianity. However, I do think that conclusions that are extrapolated from current science are often stated in ways that say: "See! We don't need God to prove that."

Because at the end of the day, he who controls the truth meme, controls society. I think that this is understood by you, and you don't want Christians to control the truth meme anymore.

I spent three years in law school only to decide I hated the law and lawyers.

I, and many of my associates,

Randy Kirk asked: Can you give me three really good examples of what you are most concerned about? The three best.

I understand you see a bad intent in the wedge document. I'll check into it more. What I'd rather know is a specific element in the debate re: evolution vs ID where Phillip Johnson is not being honest. It is hard to test things like the research books on someones lap. I've read all of Johnson and just reread some things. I'm hard pressed to know where the issue is, other than disagreement.

Ann Coulter is occasionally funny, though not my cup of tea. I read one of her books. No plans to read others. I think she does hyperbole for fame and fortune.

Lawyers and the law: As discussed earlier, stereotypes help us to survive. Not all lawyers are bottom feeding bloodsuckers.
But the law today is all about deep pockets, and has little to do with justice.

Global warming and oil companies buying scientists. You make my point. However, you don't go far enough. There is plenty of paying off on both sides of this issue, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, etc. That doesn't even count all the $500 an hour legal experts bought and paid for their opinions.

If it isn't obvious to you that he who controls "truth" controls the society (small, like a family or business or non profit; or large, like a state or country) then I doubt I can convince you in this place.

J. Biggs,

I did not mean "you" personally with regard to calling of names. I meant that in the general case of folks on this and similar sites, not to mention from the podium at the GW conference. I was so amazed by the anti-Christian statements from the comedian at the conference that I brought it up to my friend of 25 years, Michael Shermer, and suggested he keep in mind that not everyone in the audience would be an atheist.

But the others in the room howled the loudest when the Christians were being gored.

I don't have an agenda other than learning, sharing.

Dawkins changed the playing field with his comments about Christians. They were what psychologists call "fighting words" and they indicate that his agenda goes far beyond science.

Finally, regarding science in school. It goes right back to the earlier point. Whoever sets the truth gets to rule. I think it was Dewey who made it clear that it was about the children.

Dawkins changed the playing field with his comments about Christians. They were what psychologists call "fighting words" and they indicate that his agenda goes far beyond science

Randy said: Ann Coulter is occasionally funny, though not my cup of tea. I read one of her books. No plans to read others. I think she does hyperbole for fame and fortune.

Randy,

You say that you've read Phillip Johnson's writings, and have investigated the ID movement, but you've *never read* the Wedge Document?

Randy, that is the most important document to read, with regards to the ID movement.

Please read it, and then let me know what your opinion is.

Randy,

Also, what is your opinion of the whole "cdesign proponentsists" issue, with regards to "Of Pandas And People", as displayed during the Dover trial? Do you think that the authors of that book are honest people?

Mark P.,

You don't necessarily have to stand up for every scientist. I certainly am not going to stand up for Ann. Or at least not until I read her book. But I really don't want to, because my reading table is filled to overflowing with books I actually want to read by authors I find interesting. So I'll take a pass on that one.

I am no fan of Pat Robertson. He lost me a long time ago. I was never a big fan, but he blew it with me over some of his other wild statements.

I do not accept, however, that it is decided science that species have been seen to come about via evolutionary processes. Sorry. I don't even agree that you could get a majority of the field to sign onto that.

2nd law of thermodynamics. Never cared too much about that argument. But I would not agree that it is either stupid or dishonest to continue the debate on this. And I know several scientists personally who are not 100% convinced on this.

Kit,

Sorry, I am not up to date on that either. I'm lunching with a self-described naturalist, stanford grad, scientist tomorrow. I'll ask him about a few of these things

I do not accept, however, that it is decided science that species have been seen to come about via evolutionary processes. Sorry. I don't even agree that you could get a majority of the field to sign onto that.

2nd law of thermodynamics. Never cared too much about that argument. But I would not agree that it is either stupid or dishonest to continue the debate on this. And I know several scientists personally who are not 100% convinced on this.

oh, hell, before we go through every creationist claim in the book with Capt. Kirk here, why not just go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Capt. Kirk, and come back after you think you've actually got something to discuss that hasn't already been debunked there.

Randy said: You don't necessarily have to stand up for every scientist. I certainly am not going to stand up for Ann. Or at least not until I read her book. But I really don't want to, because my reading table is filled to overflowing with books I actually want to read by authors I find interesting. So I'll take a pass on that one.

I do not accept, however, that it is decided science that species have been seen to come about via evolutionary processes. Sorry. I don't even agree that you could get a majority of the field to sign onto that.

2nd law of thermodynamics. Never cared too much about that argument. But I would not agree that it is either stupid or dishonest to continue the debate on this. And I know several scientists personally who are not 100% convinced on this.

Sorry, I am not up to date on that either. I'm lunching with a self-described naturalist, stanford grad, scientist tomorrow. I'll ask him about a few of these things

It's like these [people] can't go outside on any given day and see that big, bright shining ball o fire up in the sky. (hint: the earth is not a closed system - it has a rather large external energy source)

Ya know, with all this talk about the dishonesty of IDers, it's incredibly surprising that none of us has mentioned our main man, Dr. Kent Hovind.

Has our fandom left us that quickly? ;-)

Note for Randy: that's another person for you to investigate, but I just feel that it's just unfair to the IDers to present one of their biggest embarrassments.

Many Christians have welcomed the "intelligent design" creationists in the belief that they are fighting for God and truth. But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980's should remind us, there are some more unsavory reasons for seeking celebrity in the Christian community: money, fame, applause, or power, especially political power. In short, there are a wealth of reasons why Christians need to be careful about trusting the stars of the "intelligent design" movement. And even well-intentioned debaters, if they let their desire to win the argument outstrip their respect for the facts, will turn out a product which is grossly misleading. Integrity is important. If--as I will show in this essay--the claims of "intelligent design" are more a product of debating tactics and tricks than they are a fair and honest presentation, Christians need to seriously consider whether they can support this movement in good faith.

A question from an amateur skeptic:

How does the question of human intellect, a gift from the divine in religious circles, affect the ID debate? The choosing of a supernatural explanation for evolution forfeits objective inquiry, and replaces curiosity with laziness. If one truly believes man is created in God's image, then all aspects are divinely inspired. To reject, misuse, or simply ignore one of the major gifts is to reject the divine.

Is there an ID reply for this?

I'm doing some of the reading you folks have recommended, so I'm taking a breather from this post. I may come back in a few days, or maybe we'll meet again on another post of interest. It hasn't always been fun, but I have gained from my time here. Hopefully there has been a drop of two of substance from my comments that has been useful to someone.

Randy Kirk --- Read Into the Cool. Interesting argument. Not all scientists agree with it, but the reviews state the book is provocative.

And no, your comments here have been completely useless to everyone...

Global warming and oil companies buying scientists. You make my point. However, you don't go far enough. There is plenty of paying off on both sides of this issue, pharmaceuticals, tobacco, etc. That doesn't even count all the $500 an hour legal experts bought and paid for their opinions.

I did not mean "you" personally with regard to calling of names. I meant that in the general case of folks on this and similar sites, not to mention from the podium at the GW conference. I was so amazed by the anti-Christian statements from the comedian at the conference that I brought it up to my friend of 25 years, Michael Shermer, and suggested he keep in mind that not everyone in the audience would be an atheist. But the others in the room howled the loudest when the Christians were being gored.

Dawkins changed the playing field with his comments about Christians. They were what psychologists call "fighting words" and they indicate that his agenda goes far beyond science.

It is hard to test things like the research books on someones lap.

I do not accept, however, that it is decided science that species have been seen to come about via evolutionary processes. Sorry. I don't even agree that you could get a majority of the field to sign onto that.

really, you can't just keep lying about the fact that there are literally hundreds of papers of observed speciation events dependent on documented mutations extant in the literature. It's very much like Behe sitting on the stand, and saying that the dozens of papers laid on his lap detailing the evolution of the immune system simply didn't exist.

I'm doing some of the reading you folks have recommended, so I'm taking a breather from this post. I may come back in a few days, or maybe we'll meet again on another post of interest. It hasn't always been fun, but I have gained from my time here. Hopefully there has been a drop of two of substance from my comments that has been useful to someone.

In 2004 he was awarded the inaugural "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth"

In 2004 he was awarded the inaugural "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth"

Dawkins changed the playing field with his comments about Christians. They were what psychologists call "fighting words" and they indicate that his agenda goes far beyond science.

And this impacts the validity of the theory of evolution...how?